1614 |
2016/0133(COD)
2017/02/16
BUDG
538 amendments...
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) ‘examination of an application for international protection’ means any examination of, or decision or ruling concerning, an application for international protection by the competent authorities in accordance with Directive 2013/32/EU and Directive 2011/95/EU, except for procedures for determining the Member State responsible in accordance with this Regulation;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) ‘withdrawal of an application for international protection’ means the actions by which the applicant terminates the procedures initiated by the submission of his or her application for international protection, in accordance with Directive 2013/32/EU, either explicitly or tacitly;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) ‘beneficiary of international protection’ means a third-country national or a stateless person who has been granted international protection as defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) ‘family members’ means, insofar as the family already existed before the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States , the following members of the applicant’s family who are present on the territory of the Member States: -the spouse of the applicant or his or her unmarried partner in a stable relationship, where the law or practice of the Member State concerned treats unmarried couples in a way comparable to married couples under its law relating to third-country nationals, -the minor children of couples referred to in the first indent or of the applicant, on condition that they are unmarried and regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law, -when the applicant is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for the applicant, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the adult is present, -when the beneficiary of international protection is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for him or her whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the beneficiary is present, -the sibling or siblings of the applicant;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 1
- the spouse of the applicant or his or her unmarried partner in a stable relationship, where the law or practice of the Member State concerned treats unmarried couples in a way comparable to married couples under its law relating to third-country nationals,deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 2
- the minor children of couples referred to in the first indent or of the applicant, on condition that they are unmarried and regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law,deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 3
- when the applicant is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for the applicant, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the adult is present,deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 4
- when the beneficiary of international protection is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for him or her whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the beneficiary is present,deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5
- the sibling or siblings of the applicant;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) ‘relative’ means the applicant’s adult aunt or uncle or grandparent who is present in the territory of a Member State, regardless of whether the applicant was born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) ‘minor’ means a third-country national or a stateless person below the age of 18 years;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point j
(j) ‘unaccompanied minor’ means a minor who arrives on the territory of the Member States unaccompanied by an adult responsible for him or her, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State concerned, and for as long as he or she is not effectively taken into the care of such an adult; it includes a minor who is left unaccompanied after he or she has entered the territory of Member States;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point j a (new)
(ja) the minor must undergo a biological test which proves beyond doubt that he or she is a minor;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) ‘representative’ means a person or an organisation appointed by the competent bodies in order to assist and represent an unaccompanied minor in procedures provided for in this Regulation with a view to ensuring the best interests of the child and exercising legal capacity for the minor where necessary. Where an organisation is appointed as a representative, it shall designate a person responsible for carrying out its duties in respect of the minor, in accordance with this Regulation;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point l
(l) ‘residence document’ means any authorisation issued by the authorities of a Member State authorising a third- country national or a stateless person to stay on its territory, including the documents substantiating the authorisation to remain on the territory under temporary protection arrangements or until the circumstances preventing a removal order from being carried out no longer apply, with the exception of visas and residence authorisations issued during the period required to determine the Member State responsible as established in this Regulation or during the examination of an application for international protection or an application for a residence permit;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point m
(m) ‘visa’ means the authorisation or decision of a Member State required for transit or entry for an intended stay in that Member State or in several Member States. The nature of the visa shall be determined in accordance with the following definitions: -‘long-stay visa’ means an authorisation or decision issued by one of the Member States in accordance with its national law or Union law required for entry for an intended stay in that Member State of more than three months, -‘short-stay visa’ means an authorisation or decision of a Member State with a view to transit through or an intended stay on the territory of one or more or all the Member States of a duration of no more than three months in any six-month period beginning on the date of first entry on the territory of the Member States, -‘airport transit visa’ means a visa valid for transit through the international transit areas of one or more airports of the Member States;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point m – indent 1
- ‘long-stay visa’ means an authorisation or decision issued by one of the Member States in accordance with its national law or Union law required for entry for an intended stay in that Member State of more than three months,deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point m – indent 2
- ‘short-stay visa’ means an authorisation or decision of a Member State with a view to transit through or an intended stay on the territory of one or more or all the Member States of a duration of no more than three months in any six-month period beginning on the date of first entry on the territory of the Member States,deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point m – indent 3
- ‘airport transit visa’ means a visa valid for transit through the international transit areas of one or more airports of the Member States;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point n
(n) ‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of reasons in an individual case, which are based on objective criteria defined by law, to believe that an applicant or a third-country national or a stateless person who is subject to a transfer procedure may abscond;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point o
(o) 'benefitting Member State' means the Member State benefitting from the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation and carrying out the allocation of the applicant;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point p
(p) ‘Member State of allocation’ means the Member States to which an applicant will be allocated under the allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q
(q) ‘resettled person’ means a person subject to the process of resettlement whereby, on a request from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (‘UNHCR’) based on a person’s need for international protection, third-country nationals are transferred from a third country and established in a Member State where they are permitted to reside with one of the following statuses: (i)‘refugee status’ within the meaning of point (e) of Article 2 of Directive 2011/95/EU; (ii)‘subsidiary protection status’ within the meaning of point (g) of Article 2 of Directive 2011/95/EU; or (iii)any other status which offers similar rights and benefits under national and Union law as those referred to in points (i) and (ii);deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q – point i
(i) ‘refugee status’ within the meaning of point (e) of Article 2 of Directive 2011/95/EU;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q – point ii
(ii) ‘subsidiary protection status’ within the meaning of point (g) of Article 2 of Directive 2011/95/EU; ordeleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q – point iii
(iii) any other status which offers similar rights and benefits under national and Union law as those referred to in points (i) and (ii);deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point r
(r) ‘European Union Agency for Asylum' means the Agency as established by Regulation (EU) [Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010].deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall examine any application for international protection by a third-country national or a stateless person who applies on the territory of any one of them, including at the border or in the transit zones. The application shall be examined by a single Member State, which shall be the one which the criteria set out in Chapter III indicate is responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Where no Member State responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this Regulation, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall be responsible for examining it. Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the determining Member State shall continue to examine the criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether another Member State can be designated as responsible. Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set out in Chapter III or to the first Member State with which the application was lodged, the determining Member State shall become the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where no Member State responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this Regulation, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall be responsible for examining it.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the determining Member State shall continue to examine the criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether another Member State can be designated as responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set out in Chapter III or to the first Member State with which the application was lodged, the determining Member State shall become the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Before applying the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall: (a)examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; and (b)examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: (i)the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or (ii)the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; andeleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: (i)the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or (ii)the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point b – point i
(i) the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; ordeleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii
(ii) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State considers an application inadmissible or examines an application in accelerated procedure pursuant to paragraph 3, that Member State shall be considered the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 4
1.Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection has entered irregularly into the territory of the Member States, the application shall be made in the Member State of that first entry. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection is legally present in a Member State, the application shall be made in that Member State. 2.The applicant shall submit as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview pursuant to Article 7, all the elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States. 3.The applicant shall: (a)comply with a transfer decision notified to him or her in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 27 and point (b) of Article 38; (b)be present and available to the competent authorities in the Member State of application, respectively in the Member State to which he or she is transferred.Article 4 deleted Obligations of the applicant
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection has entered irregularly into the territory of the Member States, the application shall be made in the Member State of that first entry. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection is legally present in a Member State, the application shall be made in that Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The applicant shall submit as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview pursuant to Article 7, all the elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The applicant shall: (a)comply with a transfer decision notified to him or her in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 27 and point (b) of Article 38; (b)be present and available to the competent authorities in the Member State of application, respectively in the Member State to which he or she is transferred.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) comply with a transfer decision notified to him or her in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 27 and point (b) of Article 38;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) be present and available to the competent authorities in the Member State of application, respectively in the Member State to which he or she is transferrdeleted.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5
Consequences of non-compliance 1.If an applicant does not comply with the obligation set out in Article 4(1), the Member State responsible in accordance with this Regulation shall examine the application in an accelerated procedure, in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU. 2.The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State. 3.The applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care, during the procedures under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present. 4.The competent authorities shall take into account elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible only insofar as these were submitted within the deadline set out in Article 4(2).Article 5 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. If an applicant does not comply with the obligation set out in Article 4(1), the Member State responsible in accordance with this Regulation shall examine the application in an accelerated procedure, in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care, during the procedures under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The competent authorities shall take into account elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible only insofar as these were submitted within the deadline set out in Article 4(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) that the right to apply for international protection does not encompass any choice of the applicant which Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) of the objectives of this Regulation and the consequences of making another application in a different Member State as well as the consequences of leaving the Member State where he or she is obliged to be present during the phases in which the Member State responsible under this Regulation is being determined and the application for international protection is being examined , in particular that the applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU in any Member State other than the one where he or she is required to be present, with the exception of emergency health care ;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) of the criteria and the procedures for determining the Member State responsible, the hierarchy of such criteria in the different steps of the procedure and their duration;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) of the personal interview pursuant to Article 7 and the obligation of submitting and substantiating information regarding the presence of family members, relatives or any other family relations in the Member States, including the means by which the applicant can submit such information;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) of the possibility to challenge a transfer decision within 7 days after notification and of the fact that this challenge shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon ;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) of the possibility to challenge a transfer decision within 72 days after notification and of the fact that this challenge shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon ;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) that the competent authorities of Member States and the European Union Agency for Asylum process personal data of the applicant including for the exchange of data on him or her for the sole purpose of implementing their obligations arising under this Regulation;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) of the categories of personal data concerndeleted;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) of the right of access to data relating to him or her and the right to request that such data be corrected if inaccurate or be deleted if unlawfully processed, as well as the procedures for exercising those rights, including the contact details of the authorities referred to in Article 47 and of the national data protection authorities responsible for hearing claims concerning the protection of personal data , and of the contact details of the data protection officer;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) where applicable, of the allocation procedure set out in Chapter VII.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided in writing in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand. Member States shall use the common leaflet drawn up pursuant to paragraph 3 for that purpose. Where necessary for the proper understanding of the applicant, the information shall also be supplied orally, for example in connection with the personal interview as referred to in Article 7.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided in writing in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand. Member States shall use the common leaflet drawn up pursuant to paragraph 3 for that purpose.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where necessary for the proper understanding of the applicant, the information shall also be supplied orally, for example in connection with the personal interview as referred to in Article 7.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, draw up a common leaflet, as well as a specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors, containing at least the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. This common leaflet shall also include information regarding the application of Regulation (EU) [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation No 603/2013] and, in particular, the purpose for which the data of an applicant may be processed within Eurodac. The common leaflet shall be established in such a manner as to enable Member States to complete it with additional Member State-specific information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2) of this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 7
1.In order to facilitate the process of determining the Member State responsible, the determining Member State shall conduct a personal interview with the applicant , unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant pursuant to Article 4(2) is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible . The interview shall also allow the proper understanding of the information supplied to the applicant in accordance with Article 6. 2.The personal interview shall take place in a timely manner and, in any event, before any take charge request pursuant to Article 24 is made . 3.The personal interview shall be conducted in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand and in which he or she is able to communicate. Where necessary, Member States shall have recourse to an interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person conducting the personal interview. 4.The personal interview shall take place under conditions which ensure appropriate confidentiality. It shall be conducted by a qualified person under national law. 5.The Member State conducting the personal interview shall make a written summary thereof which shall contain at least the main information supplied by the applicant at the interview. This summary may either take the form of a report or a standard form. The Member State shall ensure that the applicant and/or the legal advisor or other counsellor who is representing the applicant have timely access to the summary.Article 7 deleted Personal interview
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. In order to facilitate the process of determining the Member State responsible, the determining Member State shall conduct a personal interview with the applicant , unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant pursuant to Article 4(2) is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible . The interview shall also allow the proper understanding of the information supplied to the applicant in accordance with Article 6.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The personal interview shall take place in a timely manner and, in any event, before any take charge request pursuant to Article 24 is made .deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2
(2) A common pPolicy on asylum, including a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), is a cs determined by the nation stituent part of the European Union’s objective of progressively establishing an area of freedom, security and justice open to those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek protection in the Unionate, the only entity with a legitimate claim to express the will of the people, who are sovereign in this regard.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The personal interview shall be conducted in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand and in which he or she is able to communicate. Where necessary, Member States shall have recourse to an interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person conducting the personal interview.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. The personal interview shall take place under conditions which ensure appropriate confidentiality. It shall be conducted by a qualified person under national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State conducting the personal interview shall make a written summary thereof which shall contain at least the main information supplied by the applicant at the interview. This summary may either take the form of a report or a standard form. The Member State shall ensure that the applicant and/or the legal advisor or other counsellor who is representing the applicant have timely access to the summary.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for Member States with respect to all procedures provided for in this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Each Member State where an unaccompanied minor is obliged to be present shall ensure that a representative represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the relevant procedures provided for in this Regulation. The representative shall have the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration during the procedures carried out under this Regulation. Such representative shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the applicant’s file including the specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors. This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the relevant provisions in Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Each Member State where an unaccompanied minor is obliged to be present shall ensure that a representative represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the relevant procedures provided for in this Regulation. The representative shall have the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration during the procedures carried out under this Regulation. Such representative shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the applicant’s file including the specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the relevant provisions in Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. In assessing the best interests of the child, Member States shall closely cooperate with each other and shall, in particular, take due account of the following factors: (a)family reunification possibilities; (b)the minor’s well-being and social development; (c)safety and security considerations, in particular where there is a risk of the minor being a victim of human trafficking; (d)the views of the minor, in accordance with his or her age and maturity.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) family reunification possibilities;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 3
(3) The European Council, at its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999,Each Member State has ag reed to work towardssponsibility to establishing the CEAS, based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemidentity of applicants for international protection and of persons apprehentded by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 (‘the Geneva Convention’), thus ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution, i.e. maintaining the principle of non- refoulement. In this respect, and without the responsibility criteria laid down in this Regulation being affected, Member States, all respecting the principle of non- refoulement, are considered as safe countries for third-country nationalswhen unlawfully crossing an external border of the Union. It has a responsibility to detain illegal immigrants, to consider their applications and, if appropriate, to expel them.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the minor’s well-being and social development;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) safety and security considerations, in particular where there is a risk of the minor being a victim of human trafficking;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) the views of the minor, in accordance with his or her age and maturity.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to the Member State responsible or, where applicable, to the Member State of allocation, the transferring Member State shall make sure that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor shall be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3. The assessment shall be done swiftly by staff with the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph nouveau5
new5. For the purpose of applying Article 10, the Member State where the unaccompanied minor lodged an application for international protection shall, as soon as possible, take appropriate action to identify the family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor on the territory of Member States, whilst protecting the best interests of the child. To that end, that Member State may call for the assistance of international or other relevant organisations, and may facilitate the minor’s access to the tracing services of such organisations. The staff of the competent authorities referred to in Article 47 who deal with requests concerning unaccompanied minors shall have received, and shall continue to receive, appropriate training concerning the specific needs of minors.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph nouveau5 – subparagraph 1
For the purpose of applying Article 10, the Member State where the unaccompanied minor lodged an application for international protection shall, as soon as possible, take appropriate action to identify the family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor on the territory of Member States, whilst protecting the best interests of the child.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph nouveau5 – subparagraph 2
To that end, that Member State may call for the assistance of international or other relevant organisations, and may facilitate the minor’s access to the tracing services of such organisations.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph nouveau5 – subparagraph 3
The staff of the competent authorities referred to in Article 47 who deal with requests concerning unaccompanied minors shall have received, and shall continue to receive, appropriate training concerning the specific needs of minors.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 6
6. With a view to facilitating the appropriate action to identify the family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor living in the territory of another Member State pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Article, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts including a standard form for the exchange of relevant information between Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 9
1.The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied only once, in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter. 2.The Member State responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in this Chapter shall be determined on the basis of the situation obtaining when the applicant first lodged his or her application for international protection with a Member State.Article 9 deleted Hierarchy of criteria
Proposal for a regulation Recital 4
(4) The Tampere conclusions also stated that the CEAS should include, in the short-term, a clear and workable method for determining the Member State responsible for the examination of an asylum application.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied only once, in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in this Chapter shall be determined on the basis of the situation obtaining when the applicant first lodged his or her application for international protection with a Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 10
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, only the criteria set out in this article shall apply, in the order in which they are set out in paragraphs 2 to 5.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State responsible shall be that where a family member of the unaccompanied minor is legally present, provided that it is in the best interests of the minor. Where the applicant is a married minor whose spouse is not legally present on the territory of the Member States, the Member State responsible shall be the Member State where the father, mother or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, or sibling is legally present.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. Where the applicant has a relative who is legally present in another Member State and where it is established, based on an individual examination, that the relative can take care of him or her, that Member State shall unite the minor with his or her relative and shall be the Member State responsible, provided that it is in the best interests of the minor.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. Where family members or relatives as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, stay in more than one Member State, the Member State responsible shall be decided on the basis of what is in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 57 concerning the identification of family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor; the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a relative to take care of the unaccompanied minor, including where family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor stay in more than one Member State. In exercising its powers to adopt delegated acts, the Commission shall not exceed the scope of the best interests of the child as provided for under Article 8(3).
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 7
7. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for the consultation and the exchange of information between Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 5
(5) Such a method should be based on objective, fair criteria both for the Member States and for the persons concerned. It should, in particular, make it possible to determine rapidly the Member State responsible, so as to guarantee effective access to the procedures for granting international protection and not to compromise the objective of the rapid processing of applications for international protection.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 11
Family members who are beneficiaries of Where the applicant has a family member, regardless of whether the family was previously formed in the country of origin, who has been allowed to reside as a beneficiary of international protection in a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.Article 11 deleted international protection
Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – paragraph 1
Where the applicant has a family member, regardless of whether the family was previously formed in the country of origin, who has been allowed to reside as a beneficiary of international protection in a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 12
Family members who are applicants for If the applicant has a family member in a Member State whose application for international protection in that Member State has not yet been the subject of a first decision regarding the substance, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.Article 12 deleted international protection
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 1
If the applicant has a family member in a Member State whose application for international protection in that Member State has not yet been the subject of a first decision regarding the substance, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 13
Where several family members submit applications for international protection in the same Member State simultaneously, or on dates close enough for the procedures for determining the Member State responsible to be conducted together, and where the application of the criteria set out in this Regulation would lead to their being separated, the Member State responsible shall be determined on the basis of the following provisions: (a)responsibility for examining the applications for international protection of all the family members and/or minor unmarried siblings shall lie with the Member State which the criteria indicate is responsible for taking charge of the largest number of them; (b)failing this, responsibility shall lie with the Member State which the criteria indicate is responsible for examining the application of the oldest of them.Article 13 deleted Family procedure
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 1
Where several family members submit applications for international protection in the same Member State simultaneously, or on dates close enough for the procedures for determining the Member State responsible to be conducted together, and where the application of the criteria set out in this Regulation would lead to their being separated, the Member State responsible shall be determined on the basis of the following provisions: (a)responsibility for examining the applications for international protection of all the family members and/or minor unmarried siblings shall lie with the Member State which the criteria indicate is responsible for taking charge of the largest number of them; (b)failing this, responsibility shall lie with the Member State which the criteria indicate is responsible for examining the application of the oldest of them.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) responsibility for examining the applications for international protection of all the family members and/or minor unmarried siblings shall lie with the Member State which the criteria indicate is responsible for taking charge of the largest number of them;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) failing this, responsibility shall lie with the Member State which the criteria indicate is responsible for examining the application of the oldest of them.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 14
Issue of residence documents or visas 1.Where the applicant is in possession of a valid residence document or a residence document which has expired less than two years before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the document shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. 2.Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the visa shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, unless the visa was issued on behalf of another Member State under a representation arrangement as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council 25. In such a case, the represented Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. 3.Where the applicant is in possession of more than one valid residence document or visa issued by different Member States, the responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall be assumed by the Member States in the following order: (a)the Member State which issued the residence document conferring the right to the longest period of residency or, where the periods of validity are identical, the Member State which issued the residence document having the latest expiry date; (b)the Member State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date where the various visas are of the same type; (c)where visas are of different kinds, the Member State which issued the visa having the longest period of validity or, where the periods of validity are identical, the Member State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date. 4.The fact that the residence document or visa was issued on the basis of a false or assumed identity or on submission of forged, counterfeit or invalid documents shall not prevent responsibility being allocated to the Member State which issued it. However, the Member State issuing the residence document or visa shall not be responsible if it can establish that a fraud was committed after the document or visa had been issued. _________________ 25Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).Article 14 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid residence document or a residence document which has expired less than two years before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the document shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 6
(6) The first phase in the creation of a CEAS that should lead, in the longer term, to a common procedure and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for those granted international protection, has now been completed. The European Council of 4 November 2004 adopted The Hague Programme which set the objectives to be implemented in the area of freedom, security and justice in the period 2005-2010. In this respect, The Hague Programme invited the European Commission to conclude the evaluation of the first-phase legal instruments and to submit the second-phase instruments and measures to the European Parliament and to the Council with a view to their adoption before 2010.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the visa shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, unless the visa was issued on behalf of another Member State under a representation arrangement as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . In such a case, the represented Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. _________________ 25Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. Where the applicant is in possession of more than one valid residence document or visa issued by different Member States, the responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall be assumed by the Member States in the following order: (a)the Member State which issued the residence document conferring the right to the longest period of residency or, where the periods of validity are identical, the Member State which issued the residence document having the latest expiry date; (b)the Member State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date where the various visas are of the same type; (c)where visas are of different kinds, the Member State which issued the visa having the longest period of validity or, where the periods of validity are identical, the Member State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) the Member State which issued the residence document conferring the right to the longest period of residency or, where the periods of validity are identical, the Member State which issued the residence document having the latest expiry date;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the Member State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date where the various visas are of the same type;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) where visas are of different kinds, the Member State which issued the visa having the longest period of validity or, where the periods of validity are identical, the Member State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 4
4. The fact that the residence document or visa was issued on the basis of a false or assumed identity or on submission of forged, counterfeit or invalid documents shall not prevent responsibility being allocated to the Member State which issued it. However, the Member State issuing the residence document or visa shall not be responsible if it can establish that a fraud was committed after the document or visa had been issued.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 15
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.Article 15 deleted Entry
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 16
If a third-country national or a stateless person enters into the territory of a Member State in which the need for him or her to have a vArticle 16 deleted Visa is waived, that Member State shall be responsible for examining his or her application for international protection. entry
Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1
If a third-country national or a stateless person enters into the territory of a Member State in which the need for him or her to have a visa is waived, that Member State shall be responsible for examining his or her application for international protection.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7
(7) In the Stockholm Programme, the European Council reiterated its commitment to the objective of establishing a common area of protection and solidarity in accordance with Article 78 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), for those granted international protection, by 2012 at the latest. Furthermore it emphasised that the Dublin system remains a cornerstone in building the CEAS, as it clearly allocates responsibility among Member States for the examination of applications for international protection. In May 2015 the Commission indicated in its Communication on the European Agenda on Migration that the Dublin Regulation would be evaluated and, if necessary, that a proposal for its revision would be made, in particular to achieve a fairer distribution of asylum seekers in Europe .deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 17
Application in an international transit Where the application for international protection is made in the international transit area of an airport of a Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application.rticle 17 deleted area of an airport
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 1
Where the application for international protection is made in the international transit area of an airport of a Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 18
1.Where, on account of pregnancy, a new- born child, serious illness, severe disability or old age, an applicant is dependent on the assistance of his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States, or his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States is dependent on the assistance of the applicant, Member States shall normally keep or bring together the applicant with that child, sibling or parent, provided that family ties existed in the country of origin, that the child, sibling or parent or the applicant is able to take care of the dependent person and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing. 2.Where the child, sibling or parent referred to in paragraph 1 is legally resident in a Member State other than the one where the applicant is present, the Member State responsible shall be the one where the child, sibling or parent is legally resident unless the applicant’s health prevents him or her from travelling to that Member State for a significant period of time. In such a case, the Member State responsible shall be the one where the applicant is present. Such Member State shall not be subject to the obligation to bring the child, sibling or parent of the applicant to its territory. 3.The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 57 concerning the elements to be taken into account in order to assess the dependency link, the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links, the criteria for assessing the capacity of the person concerned to take care of the dependent person and the elements to be taken into account in order to assess the inability to travel for a significant period of time. 4.The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information between Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).Article 18 deleted Dependent persons
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Where, on account of pregnancy, a new-born child, serious illness, severe disability or old age, an applicant is dependent on the assistance of his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States, or his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States is dependent on the assistance of the applicant, Member States shall normally keep or bring together the applicant with that child, sibling or parent, provided that family ties existed in the country of origin, that the child, sibling or parent or the applicant is able to take care of the dependent person and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. Where the child, sibling or parent referred to in paragraph 1 is legally resident in a Member State other than the one where the applicant is present, the Member State responsible shall be the one where the child, sibling or parent is legally resident unless the applicant’s health prevents him or her from travelling to that Member State for a significant period of time. In such a case, the Member State responsible shall be the one where the applicant is present. Such Member State shall not be subject to the obligation to bring the child, sibling or parent of the applicant to its territory.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 57 concerning the elements to be taken into account in order to assess the dependency link, the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links, the criteria for assessing the capacity of the person concerned to take care of the dependent person and the elements to be taken into account in order to assess the inability to travel for a significant period of time.
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information between Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 19
1. By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation. The Member State which decides to examine an application for international protection pursuant to this paragraph shall become the Member State responsible and shall assume the obligations associated with that responsibility. Where applicable, it shall inform the Member State previously responsible, the Member State conducting a procedure for determining the Member State responsible or the Member State which has been requested to take charge of the applicant. The Member State which becomes responsible pursuant to this paragraph shall forthwith indicate it in Eurodac in accordance with Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] by adding the date when the decision to examine the application was taken. 2. The Member State in which an application for international protection is made and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible may, at any time before a Member State responsible has been determined , request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations , even where that other Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and 18. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing. The request to take charge shall contain all the material in the possession of the requesting Member State to allow the requested Member State to assess the situation. The requested Member State shall carry out any necessary checks to examine the humanitarian grounds cited, and shall reply to the requesting Member State within one month of receipt . A reply refusing the request shall state the reasons on which the refusal is based. Where the requested Member State accepts the request, responsibility for examining the application shall be transferred to it.Article 19 deleted Discretionary clauses
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third- country national or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation. The Member State which decides to examine an application for international protection pursuant to this paragraph shall become the Member State responsible and shall assume the obligations associated with that responsibility. Where applicable, it shall inform the Member State previously responsible, the Member State conducting a procedure for determining the Member State responsible or the Member State which has been requested to take charge of the applicant. The Member State which becomes responsible pursuant to this paragraph shall forthwith indicate it in Eurodac in accordance with Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] by adding the date when the decision to examine the application was taken.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8
(8) nulldeleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The Member State which decides to examine an application for international protection pursuant to this paragraph shall become the Member State responsible and shall assume the obligations associated with that responsibility. Where applicable, it shall inform the Member State previously responsible, the Member State conducting a procedure for determining the Member State responsible or the Member State which has been requested to take charge of the applicant.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
The Member State which becomes responsible pursuant to this paragraph shall forthwith indicate it in Eurodac in accordance with Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] by adding the date when the decision to examine the application was taken.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State in which an application for international protection is made and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible may, at any time before a Member State responsible has been determined , request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations , even where that other Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and 18. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing. The request to take charge shall contain all the material in the possession of the requesting Member State to allow the requested Member State to assess the situation. The requested Member State shall carry out any necessary checks to examine the humanitarian grounds cited, and shall reply to the requesting Member State within one month of receipt . A reply refusing the request shall state the reasons on which the refusal is based. Where the requested Member State accepts the request, responsibility for examining the application shall be transferred to it.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The Member State in which an application for international protection is made and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible may, at any time before a Member State responsible has been determined , request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations , even where that other Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and 18. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The request to take charge shall contain all the material in the possession of the requesting Member State to allow the requested Member State to assess the situation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
The requested Member State shall carry out any necessary checks to examine the humanitarian grounds cited, and shall reply to the requesting Member State within one month of receipt . A reply refusing the request shall state the reasons on which the refusal is based.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 4
Where the requested Member State accepts the request, responsibility for examining the application shall be transferred to it.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. The Member State responsible under this Regulation shall be obliged to: (a)take charge, under the conditions laid down in Articles 24, 25 and 30, of an applicant who has lodged an application in a different Member State; (b)take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, an applicant whose application is under examination and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document; (c)take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, a third- country national or a stateless person who has withdrawn the application under examination and made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document; (d)take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, a third- country national or a stateless person whose application has been rejected and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document; (e)take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30 a beneficiary of international protection, who made an application in another Member State than the Member State responsible which granted that protection status or who is on the territory of another Member State than the Member State responsible which granted that protection without a residence document.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) take charge, under the conditions laid down in Articles 24, 25 and 30, of an applicant who has lodged an application in a different Member State;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9
(9) The European Union Agency for Asylum should provide adequate support in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular by establishing the reference key for the distribution of asylum seekers under the corrective allocatioidea of distributing asylum seekers is absurd and inhumane. It is, moreover, anti-democratic, since the Member States must be able to take sovereign mdechanism, and by adapting the figures underlying the reference key annually, as well as the reference key based on Eurostat dataisions determining who may enter and remain on their territory.
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, an applicant whose application is under examination and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, a third- country national or a stateless person who has withdrawn the application under examination and made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, a third- country national or a stateless person whose application has been rejected and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30 a beneficiary of international protection, who made an application in another Member State than the Member State responsible which granted that protection status or who is on the territory of another Member State than the Member State responsible which granted that protection without a residence document.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 2
2. In a situation referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1, the Member State responsible shall examine or complete the examination of the application for international protection.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 3
3. In a situation referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, the Member State responsible shall examine or complete the examination of the application for international protection in an accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 31 paragraph 8 of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 4
4. In a situation referred to in point (c) of paragraph 1, the Member State responsible shall treat any further representations or a new application by the applicant as subsequent application in accordance with Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 5
5. In a situation referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1, the decision taken by the responsible authority of the Member State responsible to reject the application shall no longer be subject to a remedy within the framework of Chapter V of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 6
6. Where a Member State issues a residence document to the applicant, the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 shall be transferred to that Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 7
7. The Member State responsible shall indicate in the electronic file referred to in Article 22(2) the fact that it is the Member State responsible. THIS PARAGRAPH IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10
(10) In the light of the results of the evaluation undertaken of the implementation of Regulation (EU) 604/2013 , it is appropriate, at this stage, to confirm the principles underlying Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, while making the necessary improvements, in the light of experience, to the effectiveness of the Dublin system and the protection granted to applicants under that system. Based on this evaluation and on consultation with Member States, the European Parliament and o2015, the refugee and migration crisis highlighted the challenges faced by some Member States in coping with the floods of migrants. They can only be advised to invest human and material resources in protecting their stakeholborders, and it is also considered appropriate to establish in the Regulation measures required for a fair share of responsibility between Member States for applications for international protection, in particular to ensure that a disproportionate burden is not placed upon some Member Statesimportant that those States which are under the greatest pressure should receive EU funding.
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1
The Member State responsible shall indicate in the electronic file referred to in Article 22(2) the fact that it is the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
THIS PARAGRAPH IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Chapter 6 – section 1
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 21
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. The process of determining the Member State responsible shall start as soon as an application for international protection is first lodged with a Member State , provided that the Member State of first application is not already the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(4) or (5) .deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 2
2. An application for international protection shall be deemed to have been lodged once a form submitted by the applicant or a report prepared by the authorities has reached the competent authorities of the Member State concerned. Where an application is not made in writing, the time elapsing between the statement of intention and the preparation of a report should be as short as possible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 3
3. For the purposes of this Regulation, the situation of a minor who is accompanying the applicant and meets the definition of family member shall be indissociable from that of his or her family member and shall be a matter for the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection of that family member, even if the minor is not individually an applicant, provided that it is in the minor’s best interests. The same treatment shall be applied to children born after the applicant arrives on the territory of the Member States, without the need to initiate a new procedure for taking charge of them.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 4
4. Where an application for international protection is lodged with the competent authorities of a Member State by an applicant who is on the territory of another Member State, the determination of the Member State responsible shall be made by the Member State in whose territory the applicant is present. The latter Member State shall be informed without delay by the Member State which received the application and shall then, for the purposes of this Regulation, be regarded as the Member State with which the application for international protection was lodged. The applicant shall be informed in writing of this change in the determining Member State and of the date on which it took place.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Where an application for international protection is lodged with the competent authorities of a Member State by an applicant who is on the territory of another Member State, the determination of the Member State responsible shall be made by the Member State in whose territory the applicant is present. The latter Member State shall be informed without delay by the Member State which received the application and shall then, for the purposes of this Regulation, be regarded as the Member State with which the application for international protection was lodged.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
The applicant shall be informed in writing of this change in the determining Member State and of the date on which it took place.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11
(11) In order to ensure equal treatment for all applicants and beneficiaries of international protection, and consistency with the current Union asylum acquis, in particular with Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , the scope of this Regulation encompasses applicants for subsidiary protection and persons eligible for subsidiary protection. _________________ 18Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ L 337, 20.12.2011, p. 9).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 5
5. An applicant who is present in another Member State without a residence document or who there lodges an application for international protection after withdrawing his or her first application made in a different Member State during the process of determining the Member State responsible shall be taken back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, by the Member State with which that application for international protection was first lodged.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Chapter 6 – section 2
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 22
1.The Member State with which an application for international protection is lodged shall enter in the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) within the period referred to in Article 10 (1) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) 603/2013] that: (a)such application is lodged; (b)where applicable, links to the applications of family members or relatives travelling together; (c)the reference number referred to in Article 12 (i) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]. 2.Upon entry of the information pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44 shall register each application under a unique application number, create an electronic file for each application and communicate the unique application number to the Member State of application. 3.Member States shall provide the European Union Agency for Asylum with information on the number of third country nationals effectively resettled on a weekly basis. The Agency shall validate this information and enter the data in the automated system. 4.Where a hit in Eurodac indicates that the applicant has previously lodged an application for international protection before having left or having been removed from the territories of the Member States, the Member State with which the new application is lodged shall also indicate which Member State has been the Member State responsible for examining the previous application. 5.The Member State with which the application is lodged shall search the VIS pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 767/2008. Where a hit in the VIS indicates that the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application, the Member State shall indicate the visa application number and the Member State, the authority of which issued or extended the visa and whether the visa has been issued on behalf of another Member State.Article 22 deleted Registration
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1
1. The Member State with which an application for international protection is lodged shall enter in the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) within the period referred to in Article 10 (1) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) 603/2013] that: (a)such application is lodged; (b)where applicable, links to the applications of family members or relatives travelling together; (c)the reference number referred to in Article 12 (i) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013].deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) such application is lodgdeleted;
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) where applicable, links to the applications of family members or relatives travelling together;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the reference number referred to in Article 12 (i) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013].deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. Upon entry of the information pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44 shall register each application under a unique application number, create an electronic file for each application and communicate the unique application number to the Member State of application.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall provide the European Union Agency for Asylum with information on the number of third country nationals effectively resettled on a weekly basis. The Agency shall validate this information and enter the data in the automated system.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 4
4. Where a hit in Eurodac indicates that the applicant has previously lodged an application for international protection before having left or having been removed from the territories of the Member States, the Member State with which the new application is lodged shall also indicate which Member State has been the Member State responsible for examining the previous application.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 12
(12) In order to ensure that beneficiaries of international protection who entered the territory of another Member State than the Member State responsible without fulfilling the conditions of stay in that other Member State are taken back by the Member State responsible, it is necessary to encompass beneficiaries of international protection in the scope of this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State with which the application is lodged shall search the VIS pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 767/2008. Where a hit in the VIS indicates that the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application, the Member State shall indicate the visa application number and the Member State, the authority of which issued or extended the visa and whether the visa has been issued on behalf of another Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23
Information in the automated system 1.The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate in real time: (a)the total number of applications lodged in the Union; (b)the actual number of applications lodged in each Member State; (c)the number of third country nationals resettled by each Member State; (d)the actual number of applications to be examined by each Member State as Member State responsible; (e)the share of each Member State pursuant to the reference key referred to in Article 35. 2.In the electronic file referred to in Article 22(2) only the following information shall be recorded: (a)the unique application number referred to in Article 22(2): (b)link to applications referred to in point b of Article 22 (1) and 22(4); (c)the reference number referred to in point d of Article 12(i) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]; (d)the existence of an alert following the security verification pursuant to Article 40; (e)the Member State responsible; (f)in case of the indication of a previous application for international protection by the same applicant pursuant to Article 22(4), the Member State who was responsible for that previous application; (g)in case of the indication of a visa issued to the applicant pursuant to Article 22(5), the Member State which issued or extended the visa or on behalf of which the visa has been issued and the visa application number; (h)where the allocation mechanism under Chapter VII applies, the information referred to in Article 36(4) and point (h) of Article 39. 3.Upon communication by the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 20(7) and Article 22(3) the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count that application and that third country national effectively resettled for the share of that Member State. 4.The electronic files shall be automatically erased after expiry of the period set out in Article 17(1) of Regulation [Proposal for Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013].Article 23 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1
1. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate in real time: (a)the total number of applications lodged in the Union; (b)the actual number of applications lodged in each Member State; (c)the number of third country nationals resettled by each Member State; (d)the actual number of applications to be examined by each Member State as Member State responsible; (e)the share of each Member State pursuant to the reference key referred to in Article 35.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the total number of applications lodged in the Union;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the actual number of applications lodged in each Member State;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the number of third country nationals resettled by each Member Stadelete;d
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the actual number of applications to be examined by each Member State as Member State responsible;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) the share of each Member State pursuant to the reference key referred to in Article 35.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2
2. In the electronic file referred to in Article 22(2) only the following information shall be recorded: (a)the unique application number referred to in Article 22(2): (b)link to applications referred to in point b of Article 22 (1) and 22(4); (c)the reference number referred to in point d of Article 12(i) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]; (d)the existence of an alert following the security verification pursuant to Article 40; (e)the Member State responsible; (f)in case of the indication of a previous application for international protection by the same applicant pursuant to Article 22(4), the Member State who was responsible for that previous application; (g)in case of the indication of a visa issued to the applicant pursuant to Article 22(5), the Member State which issued or extended the visa or on behalf of which the visa has been issued and the visa application number; (h)where the allocation mechanism under Chapter VII applies, the information referred to in Article 36(4) and point (h) of Article 39.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the unique application number referred to in Article 22(2):deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 13
(13) Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council19 should apply to the procedure for the determination of the Member State responsible as regulated under this Regulation, subject to the limitations in the application of that Directive. _________________ 19See page 96 of this Official Journal. Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 96).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) link to applications referred to in point b of Article 22 (1) and 22(4);deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the reference number referred to in point d of Article 12(i) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013];deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) the existence of an alert following the security verification pursuant to Article 40;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) the Member State responsible;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) in case of the indication of a previous application for international protection by the same applicant pursuant to Article 22(4), the Member State who was responsible for that previous application;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) in case of the indication of a visa issued to the applicant pursuant to Article 22(5), the Member State which issued or extended the visa or on behalf of which the visa has been issued and the visa application number;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point h
(h) where the allocation mechanism under Chapter VII applies, the information referred to in Article 36(4) and point (h) of Article 39.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 3
3. Upon communication by the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 20(7) and Article 22(3) the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count that application and that third country national effectively resettled for the share of that Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 4
4. The electronic files shall be automatically erased after expiry of the period set out in Article 17(1) of Regulation [Proposal for Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013].deleted
Proposal for a regulation Chapter 6 – section 3
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 14
(14) Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council20 should apply in addition and without prejudice to the provisions concerning the procedural safeguards regulated under this Regulation, subject to the limitations in the application of that Directive. _________________ 20See page 60 of this Official Journal. Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 60).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24
1. Where a Member State with which an application for international protection has been lodged considers that another Member State is responsible for examining the application, it shall, as quickly as possible and in any event within one month of the date on which the application was lodged within the meaning of Article 21(2), request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant. Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, in the case of a Eurodac hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] or of a VIS hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 767/2008 , the request shall be sent within two weeks of receiving that hit. Where the request to take charge of an applicant is not made within the periods laid down in the first and second subparagraphs, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the application was lodged. 2. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the request that charge be taken by another Member State shall be made using a standard form and including proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from the applicant’s statement, enabling the authorities of the requested Member State to check whether it is responsible on the basis of the criteria laid down in this Regulation. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions on the preparation and submission of take charge requests. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).Article 24 deleted Submitting a take charge request
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. Where a Member State with which an application for international protection has been lodged considers that another Member State is responsible for examining the application, it shall, as quickly as possible and in any event within one month of the date on which the application was lodged within the meaning of Article 21(2), request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant. Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, in the case of a Eurodac hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] or of a VIS hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 767/2008 , the request shall be sent within two weeks of receiving that hit. Where the request to take charge of an applicant is not made within the periods laid down in the first and second subparagraphs, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the application was lodged.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where a Member State with which an application for international protection has been lodged considers that another Member State is responsible for examining the application, it shall, as quickly as possible and in any event within one month of the date on which the application was lodged within the meaning of Article 21(2), request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, in the case of a Eurodac hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] or of a VIS hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 767/2008 , the request shall be sent within two weeks of receiving that hit .deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Where the request to take charge of an applicant is not made within the periods laid down in the first and second subparagraphs, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the application was lodged.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2
2. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the request that charge be taken by another Member State shall be made using a standard form and including proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from the applicant’s statement, enabling the authorities of the requested Member State to check whether it is responsible on the basis of the criteria laid down in this Regulation. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions on the preparation and submission of take charge requests. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the request that charge be taken by another Member State shall be made using a standard form and including proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from the applicant’s statement, enabling the authorities of the requested Member State to check whether it is responsible on the basis of the criteria laid down in this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions on the preparation and submission of take charge requests. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 25
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 1
1. The requested Member State shall make the necessary checks, and shall give a decision on the request to take charge of an applicant within one month of receipt of the request.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 15
(15) In accordance with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying this Regulation. In assessing the best interests of the child, Member States should, in particular, take due account of thChildren, if scientific tests have shown that they are minor’s well-being and social developmdeed childrent, safety and security considerations and the views of the minor in accordance with his or her age and maturity, including his or her background. In addition, specific procedural guarantees for unaccompanied minors should be laid down on account of their particular vulnerabilitymust not be separated from their families. Special detention centres could be set up to cater for families awaiting expulsion.
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 2
2. Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, in the case of a Eurodac hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] or of a VIS hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 767/2008, the requested Member State shall give a decision on the request within two weeks of receipt of the request.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 3
3. In the procedure for determining the Member State responsible elements of proof and circumstantial evidence shall be usdeleted.
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish, and review periodically, two lists, indicating the relevant elements of proof and circumstantial evidence in accordance with the criteria set out in points (a) and (b) of this paragraph. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2). (a) Proof: (i) this refers to formal proof which determines responsibility pursuant to this Regulation, as long as it is not refuted by proof to the contrary; (ii) the Member States shall provide the Committee provided for in Article 56 with models of the different types of administrative documents, in accordance with the typology established in the list of formal proofs; (b) Circumstantial evidence: (i) this refers to indicative elements which while being refutable may be sufficient, in certain cases, according to the evidentiary value attributed to them; (ii) their evidentiary value, in relation to the responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) Proof: (i) this refers to formal proof which determines responsibility pursuant to this Regulation, as long as it is not refuted by proof to the contrary; (ii) the Member States shall provide the Committee provided for in Article 56 with models of the different types of administrative documents, in accordance with the typology established in the list of formal proofs;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 4 – point a – point i
(i) this refers to formal proof which determines responsibility pursuant to this Regulation, as long as it is not refuted by proof to the contrary;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 4 – point a – point ii
(ii) the Member States shall provide the Committee provided for in Article 56 with models of the different types of administrative documents, in accordance with the typology established in the list of formal proofs;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) Circumstantial evidence: (i) this refers to indicative elements which while being refutable may be sufficient, in certain cases, according to the evidentiary value attributed to them; (ii) their evidentiary value, in relation to the responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 4 – point b – point i
(i) this refers to indicative elements which while being refutable may be sufficient, in certain cases, according to the evidentiary value attributed to them;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 4 – point b – point ii
(ii) their evidentiary value, in relation to the responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 5
5. The requirement of proof should not exceed what is necessary for the proper application of this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 16
(16) In accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, respect for family life should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 6
6. If there is no formal proof, the requested Member State shall acknowledge its responsibility if the circumstantial evidence is coherent, verifiable and sufficiently detailed to establish responsibility.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 7
7. Where the requested Member State does not object to the request within the one-month period mentioned in paragraph 1 by a reply which gives substantiated reasons, or where applicable within the two weeks period mentioned in paragraph 2, this shall be tantamount to accepting the request, and entail the obligation to take charge of the person, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Chapter 6 – section 4
Procedures for take back notifications Submitting a take back notification 1. In a situation referred to in Article 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notification at the latest within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, and transfer that person to the Member State responsible. 2. A take back notification shall be made using a standard form and shall include proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from the statements of the person concerned. 3. The Member State responsible shall confirm immediately the receipt of the notification to the Member State which made the notification. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take back notifications. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2). THIS PARAGRAPH IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 26
Submitting a take back notification 1. In a situation referred to in Article 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notification at the latest within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, and transfer that person to the Member State responsible. 2. A take back notification shall be made using a standard form and shall include proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from the statements of the person concerned. 3. The Member State responsible shall confirm immediately the receipt of the notification to the Member State which made the notification. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take back notifications. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2). THIS PARAGRAPH IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE.Article 26 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. In a situation referred to in Article 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notification at the latest within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, and transfer that person to the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. A take back notification shall be made using a standard form and shall include proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from the statements of the person concerned.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 3
3. The Member State responsible shall confirm immediately the receipt of the notification to the Member State which made the notification.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take back notifications. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2). THIS PARAGRAPH IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take back notifications. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Chapter 6 – section 5
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member State where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concernsdetains illegal immigrants before sending them back to their country of origin.
Proposal for a regulation Article 27
Notification of a transfer decision 1. Where the requested Member State accepts to take charge of an applicant , the requesting Member State shall notify the applicant in writing without delay of the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible and, where applicable, of not examining his or her application for international protection. 2. Where the applicant or another person referred to in Article 20(1) (c), (d) or (e) is to be taken back, the Member State where the person concerned is present shall notify the person concerned in writing without undue delay the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible. 3. If a legal advisor or other counsellor is representing the person concerned, Member States may choose to notify the decision to such legal advisor or counsellor instead of to the person concerned and, where applicable, communicate the decision to the person concerned. 4. The decision referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall contain information on the legal remedies available and on the time limits applicable for seeking such remedies and for carrying out the transfer, and shall, if necessary, contain information on the place where, and the date on which, the person concerned should appear, if that person is travelling to the Member State responsible by his or her own means. Member States shall ensure that information on persons or entities that may provide legal assistance to the person concerned is communicated to the person concerned together with the decision referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 , when that information has not been already communicated. 5. When the person concerned is not assisted or represented by a legal advisor or other counsellor, Member States shall inform him or her of the main elements of the decision, which shall always include information on the legal remedies available and the time limits applicable for seeking such remedies, in a language that the person concerned understands or is reasonably supposed to understand.Article 27 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 1
1. Where the requested Member State accepts to take charge of an applicant , the requesting Member State shall notify the applicant in writing without delay of the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible and, where applicable, of not examining his or her application for international protection.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 2
2. Where the applicant or another person referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) is to be taken back, the Member State where the person concerned is present shall notify the person concerned in writing without undue delay the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 3
3. If a legal advisor or other counsellor is representing the person concerned, Member States may choose to notify the decision to such legal advisor or counsellor instead of to the person concerned and, where applicable, communicate the decision to the person concerned.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 4
4. The decision referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall contain information on the legal remedies available and on the time limits applicable for seeking such remedies and for carrying out the transfer, and shall, if necessary, contain information on the place where, and the date on which, the person concerned should appear, if that person is travelling to the Member State responsible by his or her own means. Member States shall ensure that information on persons or entities that may provide legal assistance to the person concerned is communicated to the person concerned together with the decision referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 , when that information has not been already communicated.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
The decision referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall contain information on the legal remedies available and on the time limits applicable for seeking such remedies and for carrying out the transfer, and shall, if necessary, contain information on the place where, and the date on which, the person concerned should appear, if that person is travelling to the Member State responsible by his or her own means.deleted
Member States shall ensure that information on persons or entities that may provide legal assistance to the person concerned is communicated to the person concerned together with the decision referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, when that information has not been already communicated.ted
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 5
5. When the person concerned is not assisted or represented by a legal advisor or other counsellor, Member States shall inform him or her of the main elements of the decision, which shall always include information on the legal remedies available and the time limits applicable for seeking such remedies, in a language that the person concerned understands or is reasonably supposed to understand.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. The applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) shall have the right to an effective remedy, in the form of an appeal or a review, in fact and in law, against a transfer decision, before a court or tribunal.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 19
(19) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should not include the sibling or siblings of the applicant. Reuniting siblings is of particular importance for improving the chances of integration of applicants and hence reducing secondary movements. The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member State. This limited and targeted enlargement of the scope of the definition is expected to reduce the incentive for some secondary movements of asylum seekers within the EUa further factor which contributes to the non- assimilation of immigrants, who prefer to fall back on their community of origin.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall provide for a period of 7 days after the notification of a transfer decision within which the person concerned may exercise his or her right to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 3
3. For appeals against, or reviews of, transfer decisions, the court or tribunal shall decide within a period of 15 days on the substance of the appeal or review. No transfer shall take place before this decision on the appeal or review is taken.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 4
4 The scope of the effective remedy laid down in paragraph 1 shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 5
5. Where no transfer decision referred to in paragraph 1 is taken, Member States shall provide for an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, where the applicant claims that a family member or, in the case of unaccompanied minors, a relative is legally present in a Member State other than the one which is examining his or her application for international protection, and considers therefore that other Member State as Member State responsible for examining the application.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 6
6 Member States shall ensure that the person concerned has access to legal assistance and, where necessary, to linguistic assistance.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7
7. Member States shall ensure that legal assistance is granted on request free of charge where the person concerned cannot afford the costs involved. Member States may provide that, as regards fees and other costs, the treatment of applicants shall not be more favourable than the treatment generally accorded to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance. Without arbitrarily restricting access to legal assistance, Member States may provide that free legal assistance and representation not be granted where the appeal or review is considered by the competent authority or a court or tribunal to have no tangible prospect of success. Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation pursuant to this paragraph is taken by an authority other than a court or tribunal, Member States shall provide the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal to challenge that decision. In case the decision is challenged, this remedy shall be an integral part of the remedy referred to in paragraph 1. In complying with the requirements set out in this paragraph, Member States shall ensure that legal assistance and representation is not arbitrarily restricted and that the applicant’s effective access to justice is not hindered. Legal assistance shall include at least the preparation of the required procedural documents and representation before a court or tribunal and may be restricted to legal advisors or counsellors specifically designated by national law to provide assistance and representation. Procedures for access to legal assistance shall be laid down in national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that legal assistance is granted on request free of charge where the person concerned cannot afford the costs involved. Member States may provide that, as regards fees and other costs, the treatment of applicants shall not be more favourable than the treatment generally accorded to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Without arbitrarily restricting access to legal assistance, Member States may provide that free legal assistance and representation not be granted where the appeal or review is considered by the competent authority or a court or tribunal to have no tangible prospect of success.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation pursuant to this paragraph is taken by an authority other than a court or tribunal, Member States shall provide the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal to challenge that decision. In case the decision is challenged, this remedy shall be an integral part of the remedy referred to in paragraph 1.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 4
In complying with the requirements set out in this paragraph, Member States shall ensure that legal assistance and representation is not arbitrarily restricted and that the applicant’s effective access to justice is not hindered.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that that Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representatives tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 5
Legal assistance shall include at least the preparation of the required procedural documents and representation before a court or tribunal and may be restricted to legal advisors or counsellors specifically designated by national law to provide assistance and representation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6
Procedures for access to legal assistance shall be laid down in national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Chapter 6 – section 6
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 29
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is subject to the procedure established by this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2
2. When there is a significant risk of absconding, Member States may detain the person concerned in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with this Regulation, on the basis of an individual assessment and only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3
3. Detention shall be for as short a period as possible and shall be for no longer than the time reasonably necessary to fulfil the required administrative procedures with due diligence until the transfer under this Regulation is carried out. Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notification shall not exceed two weeks from the lodging of the application. The Member State carrying out the procedure in accordance with this Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply on a take charge request. Such reply shall be given within one week of receipt of the take charge request. Failure to reply within the one- week period shall be tantamount to accepting the take charge request and shall entail the obligation to take the person in charge, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival. Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the transfer of that person from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision. When the requesting Member State fails to comply with the deadlines for submitting a take charge request or take back notification or where the transfer does not take place within the period of four weeks referred to in the third subparagraph, the person shall no longer be detained. Articles 24, 26 and 30 shall continue to apply accordingly.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Detention shall be for as short a period as possible and shall be for no longer than the time reasonably necessary to fulfil the required administrative procedures with due diligence until the transfer under this Regulation is carried out.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notification shall not exceed two weeks from the lodging of the application. The Member State carrying out the procedure in accordance with this Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply on a take charge request. Such reply shall be given within one week of receipt of the take charge request. Failure to reply within the one- week period shall be tantamount to accepting the take charge request and shall entail the obligation to take the person in charge, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the transfer of that person from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 21
(21) Assuming responsibility by a Member State for examining an application lodged with it in cases when such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation may undermine the effectiveness and sustainability of the system and should be exceptional. Therefore, a Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria only on humanitarian grounds, in particular for family reasons, before a Member State responsible has been determined and examine an application for international protection lodged with it or with another Member State, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the binding criteria laid down in this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4
When the requesting Member State fails to comply with the deadlines for submitting a take charge request or take back notification or where the transfer does not take place within the period of four weeks referred to in the third subparagraph, the person shall no longer be detained. Articles 24, 26 and 30 shall continue to apply accordingly.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 4
4. As regards the detention conditions and the guarantees applicable to persons detained, in order to secure the transfer procedures to the Member State responsible, Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Directive 2013/33/EU shall apply.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Chapter 6 – section 7
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 30
1. The determining Member State whose take charge request referred to in Article 20(1)(a) was accepted or who made a take back notification referred to in Article 20(1)(b) to (e) shall take a transfer decision at the latest within one week of acceptance or notification and transfer the applicant or the person concerned to the Member State responsible. The transfer of the applicant or of another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out in accordance with the national law of the requesting Member State, after consultation between the Member States concerned, as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision. 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. If necessary, the applicant shall be supplied by the requesting Member State with a laissez passer. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish the design of the laissez passer. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2). The Member State responsible shall inform the requesting Member State, as appropriate, of the safe arrival of the person concerned or of the fact that he or she did not appear within the set time limit. 2. If a person has been transferred erroneously or a decision to transfer is overturned on appeal or review after the transfer has been carried out, the Member State which carried out the transfer shall promptly accept that person back. 3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information between Member States, in particular in the event of postponed or delayed transfers, transfers following acceptance by default, transfers of minors or dependent persons, and supervised transfers. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).Article 30 deleted Modalities and time limits
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1
1. The determining Member State whose take charge request referred to in Article 20(1)(a) was accepted or who made a take back notification referred to in Article 20(1) (b) to (e) shall take a transfer decision at the latest within one week of acceptance or notification and transfer the applicant or the person concerned to the Member State responsible. The transfer of the applicant or of another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out in accordance with the national law of the requesting Member State, after consultation between the Member States concerned, as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision. 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. If necessary, the applicant shall be supplied by the requesting Member State with a laissez passer. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish the design of the laissez passer. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2). The Member State responsible shall inform the requesting Member State, as appropriate, of the safe arrival of the person concerned or of the fact that he or she did not appear within the set time limit.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The determining Member State whose take charge request referred to in Article 20(1)(a) was accepted or who made a take back notification referred to in Article 20(1)(b) to (e) shall take a transfer decision at the latest within one week of acceptance or notification and transfer the applicant or the person concerned to the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The transfer of the applicant or of another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out in accordance with the national law of the requesting Member State, after consultation between the Member States concerned, as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision .deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
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.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
If necessary, the applicant shall be supplied by the requesting Member State with a laissez passer. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish the design of the laissez passer. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 5
The Member State responsible shall inform the requesting Member State, as appropriate, of the safe arrival of the person concerned or of the fact that he or she did not appear within the set time limit.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22
(22) In order to ensure that the aims of this Regulation are achieved and obstacles to its application are prevented, in particular in order to avoid absconding and secondary movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation of those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are covnational asylum systems operate smoothly, asylum seekers should be kept in detention while their applications are being considered.
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 2
2. If a person has been transferred erroneously or a decision to transfer is overturned on appeal or review after the transfer has been carried out, the Member State which carried out the transfer shall promptly accept that person back.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information between Member States, in particular in the event of postponed or delayed transfers, transfers following acceptance by default, transfers of minors or dependent persons, and supervised transfers. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 31
1. The costs necessary to transfer an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) to the Member State responsible shall be met by the transferring Member State. 2. Where the person concerned has to be transferred back to a Member State as a result of an erroneous transfer or of a transfer decision that has been overturned on appeal or review after the transfer has been carried out, the Member State which initially carried out the transfer shall be responsible for the costs of transferring the person concerned back to its territory. 3. Persons to be transferred pursuant to this Regulation shall not be required to meet the costs of suchArticle 31 deleted Costs of transfers.
Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. The costs necessary to transfer an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) to the Member State responsible shall be met by the transferring Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 2
2. Where the person concerned has to be transferred back to a Member State as a result of an erroneous transfer or of a transfer decision that has been overturned on appeal or review after the transfer has been carried out, the Member State which initially carried out the transfer shall be responsible for the costs of transferring the person concerned back to its territory.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. Persons to be transferred pursuant to this Regulation shall not be required to meet the costs of such transfers.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 32
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. The Member State carrying out the transfer of an applicant or of another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c) or (d) shall communicate to the Member State responsible such personal data concerning the person to be transferred as is adequate , relevant and limited to what is necessary for the sole purposes of ensuring that the competent authorities, in accordance with national law in the Member State responsible, are in a position to provide that person with adequate assistance, including the provision of immediate health care required in order to protect his or her vital interests, and to ensure continuity in the protection and rights afforded by this Regulation and by other relevant asylum legal instruments. Those data shall be communicated to the Member State responsible within a reasonable period of time before a transfer is carried out, in order to ensure that its competent authorities in accordance with national law have sufficient time to take the necessary measures.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 2
2. The transferring Member State shall, in so far as such information is available to the competent authority in accordance with national law, transmit to the Member State responsible any information that is essential in order to safeguard the rights and immediate special needs of the person to be transferred, and in particular: (a) any immediate measures which the Member State responsible is required to take in order to ensure that the special needs of the person to be transferred are adequately addressed, including any immediate health care that may be required; (b) contact details of family members, relatives or any other family relations in the receiving Member State, where applicable; (c) in the case of minors, information on their education; (d) an assessment of the age of an applicant.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) any immediate measures which the Member State responsible is required to take in order to ensure that the special needs of the person to be transferred are adequately addressed, including any immediate health care that may be required;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 23
(23) A personal interview with the applicant should be organised in order to facilitate the determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible . As soon as the application for international protection is lodged, the applicant should be informed in particular of the application of this Regulation, of the lack of choice as to which Member State will examine his or her asylum application; of his or her obligations under this Regulation and of the consequences of not complying with themdeleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) contact details of family members, relatives or any other family relations in the receiving Member State, where applicable;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) in the case of minors, information on their education;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) an assessment of the age of an applicant.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 3
3. The exchange of information under this Article shall only take place between the authorities notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 47 of this Regulation using the ‘DubliNet’ electronic communication network set-up under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003. The information exchanged shall only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1 of this Article and shall not be further processed.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 4
4. With a view to facilitating the exchange of information between Member States, the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, draw up a standard form for the transfer of the data required pursuant to this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 5
5. The rules laid down in Article 46(8) shall apply to the exchange of information pursuant to this Article.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 33
[...]deleted
1. For the sole purpose of the provision of medical care or treatment, in particular concerning disabled persons, elderly people, pregnant women, minors and persons who have been subject to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical and sexual violence, the transferring Member State shall, in so far as it is available to the competent authority in accordance with national law, transmit to the Member State responsible information on any special needs of the person to be transferred, which in specific cases may include information on that person’s physical or mental health. That information shall be transferred in a common health certificate with the necessary documents attached. The Member State responsible shall ensure that those special needs are adequately addressed, including in particular any essential medical care that may be required. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, draw up the common health certificate. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
For the sole purpose of the provision of medical care or treatment, in particular concerning disabled persons, elderly people, pregnant women, minors and persons who have been subject to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical and sexual violence, the transferring Member State shall, in so far as it is available to the competent authority in accordance with national law, transmit to the Member State responsible information on any special needs of the person to be transferred, which in specific cases may include information on that person’s physical or mental health. That information shall be transferred in a common health certificate with the necessary documents attached. The Member State responsible shall ensure that those special needs are adequately addressed, including in particular any essential medical care that may be required.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, draw up the common health certificate. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 24
(24) In order to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the persons concerned, legal safeguards and the right to an effective remedy in respect of decisions regarding transfers to the Member State responsible should be established, in accordance, in particular, with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. An effective remedy should also be provided in situations when no transfer decision is taken but the applicant claims that another Member State is responsible on the basis that he has a family member or, for unaccompanied minors, a relative in another Member State. In order to ensure that international law is respected, an effective remedy against such decisions should cover both the examination of the application of this Regulation and of the legal and factual situation in the Member State to which the applicant is transferred. The scope of the effective remedy should be limited to an assessment of whether applicants' fundamental rights to respect of family life, the rights of the child, or the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment risk to be infringed upon.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 33 – paragraph 2
2. The transferring Member State shall only transmit the information referred to in paragraph 1 to the Member State responsible after having obtained the explicit consent of the applicant and/or of his or her representative or when such transmission is necessary to protect public health and public security, or, if the applicant is physically or legally incapable of giving his or her consent, to protect the vital interests of the applicant or of another person. The lack of consent, including a refusal to consent, shall not constitute an obstacle to the transfer.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 33 – paragraph 3
3. The processing of personal health data referred to in paragraph 1 shall only be carried out by a health professional who is subject, under national law or rules established by national competent bodies, to the obligation of professional secrecy or by another person subject to an equivalent obligation of professional secrecy.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 33 – paragraph 4
4. The exchange of information under this Article shall only take place between the health professionals or other persons referred to in paragraph 3. The information exchanged shall only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1 and shall not be further processed.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 33 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions and practical arrangements for exchanging the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 33 – paragraph 6
6. The rules laid down in Article 46(8) shall apply to the exchange of information pursuant to this Article.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 34
1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation. 2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 150% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35. 3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applications as well as the total number of resettled persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 12 months. 4. The automated system shall inform Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum once per week of the Member States' respective shares in applications for which they are the Member State responsible. 5. The automated system shall continuously monitor whether any of the Member States is above the threshold referred to in paragraph 2, and if so, notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold. 6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocation mechanism shall apply.Article 34 deleted General Principle
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation.deleted
1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied voluntarily for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 150% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 1500% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 25
(25) The Member State which is determined as responsible under this Regulation should remain responsible for examination of each and every application of that applicant, including any subsequent application, in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States. Provisions in Regulation (EU) 604/2013 which had provided for the cessation of responsibility in certain circumstances, including when deadlines for the carrying out of transfers had elapsed for a certain period of time, had created an incentive for absconding, and should therefore be removed.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 3
3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applications as well as the total number of resettled persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 12 months.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 4
4. The automated system shall inform Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum once per week of the Member States' respective shares in applications for which they are the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 5
5. The automated system shall continuously monitor whether any of the Member States is above the threshold referred to in paragraph 2, and if so, notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 6
6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocation mechanism shall apply.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 35
1. For the purpose of the corrective mechanism, the reference number for each Member State shall be determined by a key. 2. The reference key referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the following criteria for each Member State, according to Eurostat figures: (a) the size of the population (50 % weighting); (b) the total GDP (50% weighting); 3. The criteria referred to in paragraph 2 shall be applied by the formula as set out in Annex I. 4. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall establish the reference key and adapt the figures of the criteria for the reference key as well as the reference key referred to in paragraph 2 annually, based on Eurostat figures.Article 35 deleted Reference key
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 1
1. For the purpose of the corrective mechanism, the reference number for each Member State shall be determined by a key.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2
2. The reference key referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the following criteria for each Member State, according to Eurostat figures: a) the size of the population (50 % weighting); b) the total GDP (50% weighting);deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the size of the population (50 % weighting);deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the size of the population (520 % weighting);
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the total GDP (50% weighting);deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 26
(26) In order to ensure the speedy determination of responsibility and allocation of applicants for international protection between Member States, the deadlines for making and replying to requests to take charge, for making take back notifications, and for carrying out transfers, as well as for making and deciding on appeals, should be streamlined and shortened to the greatest extent possible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the total GDP (530% weighting);.
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) the migration burden already endured by the country (50% weighting).
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 3
3. The criteria referred to in paragraph 2 shall be applied by the formula as set out in Annex I.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 4
4. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall establish the reference key and adapt the figures of the criteria for the reference key as well as the reference key referred to in paragraph 2 annually, based on Eurostat figures.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 36
Application of the reference key 1. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall apply the reference key referred to in Article 35 to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1) and notify the Member States thereof. 2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefitting Member State after notification of allocation referred to in Article 34(5) shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine the Member State responsible; 3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation. 4. On the basis of the application of the reference key pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the Member State of allocation and communicate this information not later than 72 hours after the registration referred to in Article 22(1) to the benefitting Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2).Article 36 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 1
1. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall apply the reference key referred to in Article 35 to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1) and notify the Member States thereof.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 2
2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefitting Member State after notification of allocation referred to in Article 34(5) shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 3
3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 4
4. On the basis of the application of the reference key pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the Member State of allocation and communicate this information not later than 72 hours after the registration referred to in Article 22(1) to the benefitting Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Proposal for a regulation Recital 27
(27) The detention of applicants should be applied in accordance with the underlying principle that a person should not be held in detention for the sole reason that he or she is seeking international protection. Detention should be for as short a period as possible and subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality. In particular, the detention of applicants must be in accordance with Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. The procedures provided for under this Regulation in respect of a detained person should be applied as a matter of priority, within the shortest possible deadlines. As regards the general guarantees governing detention, as well as detention conditions, where appropriate, Member States should apply the provisions of Directive 2013/33/EU also to persons detained on the basis of this Regulationutomatic.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – title
Financial sSolidarity
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for AsylumIn order to ensure financial solidarity between Member States, the Commission shall establish an adjustment mechanism which applies for Member States who infringe their obligations pursuant to the relocation mechanism. To that end, the Commission shall set an amount of compensation per relocated applicant and a number of applicants that the Member State is obliged to accommodate. A fund (the "Dublin Reserve Fund") shall be established and a Member State that has failed to meet its obligations shall pay the compensation into that fund. If an infringing Member State fails to pay, the Commission shall withhold the same amount from the payments due to that Member State from other Union funds.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 2
2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve- month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 2
2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve- month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 31.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 28
(28) Deficiencies in, or the collapse of, asylum systems, often aggravated or contributed to by particular pressures on them, can jeopardise the smooth functioning of the system put in place under this Regulation, which could lead to a risk of a violation of the rights of applicants as set out in the Union asylum acquis and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, other international human rights and refugee rights.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 5
5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 5
5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250 000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.
Proposal for a regulation Article 38
Obligations of the benefitting Member The benefitting Member State shall: (a) take a decision at the latest within one week from the communication referred to in Article 36(4) to transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, unless the benefitting Member State can accept within the same time limit responsibility for examining the application pursuant to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and Article 18; (b) notify without delay the applicant of the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State of allocation; (c) transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision.Article 38 deleted State
Proposal for a regulation Article 38 – paragraph 1
The benefitting Member State shall:deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 38 – paragraph a
(a) take a decision at the latest within one week from the communication referred to in Article 36(4) to transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, unless the benefitting Member State can accept within the same time limit responsibility for examining the application pursuant to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and Article 18;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 38 – paragraph b
(b) notify without delay the applicant of the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State of allocation;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 38 – paragraph c
(c) transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 39
The Member State of allocation shall: (a) confirm to the benefitting Member State the receipt of the allocation communication and indicate the competent authority to which the applicant shall report following his or her transfer; (b) communicate to the benefitting Member State the arrival of the applicant or the fact that he or she did not appear within the set time limit; (c) receive the applicant and carry out the personal interview pursuant to Article 7, where applicable; (d) examine his or her application for international protection as Member State responsible, unless, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18, a different Member State is responsible for examining the application; (e) where, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18 a different Member State is responsible for examining the application, the Member State of allocation shall request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant; (f) where applicable, communicate to the Member State responsible the transfer to that Member State; (g) where applicable, transfer the applicant to the Member State responsible; (h) where applicable, enter in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2) that it will examine the application for international protection as Member State responsible.Article 39 deleted Obligations of the Member State of allocation
Proposal for a regulation Recital 29
(29) Proper registration of all asylum applications in the EU under a unique application number should help detect multiple applications and prevent irregular secondary movements and asylum shopping. An automated system should be established for the purpose of facilitating the application of this Regulation. It should enable registration of asylum applications lodged in the EU, effective monitoring of the share of applications of each Member State and a correct application of the corrective allocation mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1
The Member State of allocation shall: (a) confirm to the benefitting Member State the receipt of the allocation communication and indicate the competent authority to which the applicant shall report following his or her transfer; (b) communicate to the benefitting Member State the arrival of the applicant or the fact that he or she did not appear within the set time limit; (c) receive the applicant and carry out the personal interview pursuant to Article 7, where applicable; (d) examine his or her application for international protection as Member State responsible, unless, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18, a different Member State is responsible for examining the application; (e) where, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18 a different Member State is responsible for examining the application, the Member State of allocation shall request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant; (f) where applicable, communicate to the Member State responsible the transfer to that Member State; (g) where applicable, transfer the applicant to the Member State responsible; (h) where applicable, enter in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2) that it will examine the application for international protection as Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) confirm to the benefitting Member State the receipt of the allocation communication and indicate the competent authority to which the applicant shall report following his or her transfer;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) communicate to the benefitting Member State the arrival of the applicant or the fact that he or she did not appear within the set time limit;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) receive the applicant and carry out the personal interview pursuant to Article 7, where applicable;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) examine his or her application for international protection as Member State responsible, unless, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18, a different Member State is responsible for examining the application;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) where, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18 a different Member State is responsible for examining the application, the Member State of allocation shall request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) where applicable, communicate to the Member State responsible the transfer to that Member State;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) where applicable, transfer the applicant to the Member State responsible;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) where applicable, enter in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2) that it will examine the application for international protection as Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 40
Exchange of relevant information for 1. Where a transfer decision according to point (a) of Article 38 is taken, the benefitting Member State shall transmit, at the same time and for the sole purpose of verifying whether the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the fingerprint data of the applicant taken pursuant to Regulation (Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation 603/2013/EU) to the Member State of allocation. 2. Where, following a security verification, information on an applicant reveals that he or she is for serious reasons considered to be a danger to the national security or public order, information on the nature of the alert shall be shared with the law enforcement authorities in the benefitting Member State and shall not be communicated via the electronic communication channels referred to in Article 47(4). The Member State of allocation shall inform the benefitting Member State of the existence of such alert, specifying the law enforcement authorities in the Member State of application that have been fully informed, and record the existence of the alert in the automated system pursuant to point d of Article 23(2), within one week of receipt of the fingerprints. 3. Where the outcome of the security verification confirms that the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the benefitting Member State of application shall be the Member State responsible and shall examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU. 4. The information exchanged shall only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1 and shall not be further processed.Article 40 deleted security verification
Proposal for a regulation Recital 30
(30) The European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice established by Regulation (EU) No 1077/201121 should be responsible for the preparation, development and the operational management of the central system and the communication infrastructure between the central system and the national infrastructures. _________________ 21Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 of the European Parliament and of the council of 25 October 2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (OJ L 286, 1.11.2011, p. 1).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 1
1. Where a transfer decision according to point (a) of Article 38 is taken, the benefitting Member State shall transmit, at the same time and for the sole purpose of verifying whether the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the fingerprint data of the applicant taken pursuant to Regulation (Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation 603/2013/EU) to the Member State of allocation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 2
2. Where, following a security verification, information on an applicant reveals that he or she is for serious reasons considered to be a danger to the national security or public order, information on the nature of the alert shall be shared with the law enforcement authorities in the benefitting Member State and shall not be communicated via the electronic communication channels referred to in Article 47(4). The Member State of allocation shall inform the benefitting Member State of the existence of such alert, specifying the law enforcement authorities in the Member State of application that have been fully informed, and record the existence of the alert in the automated system pursuant to point d of Article 23(2), within one week of receipt of the fingerprints.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where, following a security verification, information on an applicant reveals that he or she is for serious reasons considered to be a danger to the national security or public order, information on the nature of the alert shall be shared with the law enforcement authorities in the benefitting Member State and shall not be communicated via the electronic communication channels referred to in Article 47(4).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The Member State of allocation shall inform the benefitting Member State of the existence of such alert, specifying the law enforcement authorities in the Member State of application that have been fully informed, and record the existence of the alert in the automated system pursuant to point d of Article 23(2), within one week of receipt of the fingerprints.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 3
3. Where the outcome of the security verification confirms that the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the benefitting Member State of application shall be the Member State responsible and shall examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 4
4. The information exchanged shall only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1 and shall not be further processdeleted.
Proposal for a regulation Article 41
1. Chapter V and Sections II to VII of Chapter VI shall apply mutatis mutandis. 2. Family members to whom the procedure for allocation applies shall be allocated to the same Member State.Article 41 deleted Procedure for allocation
Proposal for a regulation Article 41 – paragraph 1
1. Chapter V and Sections II to VII of Chapter VI shall apply mutatis mutandis.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 41 – paragraph 2
2. Family members to whom the procedure for allocation applies shall be allocated to the same Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 42
Costs of allocation transfers For the costs to transfer an applicant to the Member State of allocation, the benefitting Member State shall be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 500 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c). This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.Article 42 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31
(31) In accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty, Union acts should, whenever necessary, contain appropriate measures to give effect to the principle of solidarity. A corrective allocation mechanism should be established in order to ensure a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulationthus make for targeted funding by the EU.
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 1
For the costs to transfer an applicant to the Member State of allocation, the benefitting Member State shall be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 500 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c). This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.deleted
The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 150 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1). Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 2, the application of the corrective allocation shall cease for that Member State.Article 43 deleted Cessation of corrective allocation
Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 1
The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 150 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 1
The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 1580% of its share pursuant to Article 35(1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 2
Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 2, the application of the corrective allocation shall cease for that Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 44
Automated system for registration, monitoring and the allocation mechanism 1. For the purposes of the registration and monitoring the share of applications for international protection pursuant to Article 22 and of the application of the allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII an automated system shall be established. 2. The automated system shall consist of the central system and the communication infrastructure between the central system and the national infrastructures. 3. The European agency for the operational management of large scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice established by Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 shall be responsible for the preparation, development and the operational management of the central system and the communication infrastructure between the central system and the national infrastructures. 4. The national infrastructures shall be developed and managed by the Member States.rticle 44 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 1
1. For the purposes of the registration and monitoring the share of applications for international protection pursuant to Article 22 and of the application of the allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII an automated system shall be established.deleted
2. The automated system shall consist of the central system and the communication infrastructure between the central system and the national infrastructures.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 3
3. The European agency for the operational management of large scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice established by Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 shall be responsible for the preparation, development and the operational management of the central system and the communication infrastructure between the central system and the national infrastructures.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 4
4. The national infrastructures shall be developed and managed by the Member States.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31
(31) In accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty, Union acts should, whenever necessary, contain appropriate measures to give effect to the principle of solidarity. A voluntary corrective allocation mechanism should be established in order to ensure a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 45
1. The competent asylum authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 47 shall have access to the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) for entering the information referred to in Article 20(7), Article 22(1), (4) and (5), Article 37(1) and point (h) of Article 39. 2. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall have access to the automated system for entering and adapting the reference key pursuant to Article 35(4) and for entering the information referred to in Article 22(3). 3. The information referred to in Article 23(2), Article 36(4) and point h of Article 39 shall be accessible for consultation only by the competent asylum authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 47 for the purposes of this Regulation and of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions and practical arrangements for entering and consulting the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure laid down in Article 56(2).Article 45 deleted Access to the automated system
Proposal for a regulation Article 45 – paragraph 1
1. The competent asylum authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 47 shall have access to the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) for entering the information referred to in Article 20(7), Article 22(1), (4) and (5), Article 37(1) and point (h) of Article 39.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 45 – paragraph 2
2. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall have access to the automated system for entering and adapting the reference key pursuant to Article 35(4) and for entering the information referred to in Article 22(3).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 45 – paragraph 3
3. The information referred to in Article 23(2), Article 36(4) and point h of Article 39 shall be accessible for consultation only by the competent asylum authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 47 for the purposes of this Regulation and of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013].deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 45 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions and practical arrangements for entering and consulting the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure laid down in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall communicate to any Member State that so requests such personal data concerning the applicant as is adequate , relevant and limited to what is necessary for: (a) determining the Member State responsible; (b) examining the application for international protection; (c) implementing any obligation arising under this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) determining the Member State responsible;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) examining the application for international protection;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) implementing any obligation arising under this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 2
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 may only cover: (a) personal details of the applicant, and, where appropriate, his or her family members, relatives or any other family relations (full name and where appropriate, former name; nicknames or pseudonyms; nationality, present and former; date and place of birth); (b) identity and travel papers (references, validity, date of issue, issuing authority, place of issue, etc.); (c) other information necessary for establishing the identity of the applicant, including fingerprints taken of the applicant by the Member State, in particular for the purposes of Article 40 in accordance with Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]; (d) places of residence and routes travelled; (e) residence documents or visas issued by a Member State; (f) the place where the application was lodged; (g) the date on which any previous application for international protection was lodged, the date on which the present application was lodged, the stage reached in the proceedings and the decision taken, if any.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) personal details of the applicant, and, where appropriate, his or her family members, relatives or any other family relations (full name and where appropriate, former name; nicknames or pseudonyms; nationality, present and former; date and place of birth);deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) identity and travel papers (references, validity, date of issue, issuing authority, place of issue, etc.);deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) other information necessary for establishing the identity of the applicant, including fingerprints taken of the applicant by the Member State, in particular for the purposes of Article 40 in accordance with Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013];deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) places of residence and routes travelldeleted;
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) residence documents or visas issued by a Member State;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) the place where the application was lodged;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) the date on which any previous application for international protection was lodged, the date on which the present application was lodged, the stage reached in the proceedings and the decision taken, if any.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 3
3. Furthermore, provided it is necessary for the examination of the application for international protection, the Member State responsible may request another Member State to let it know on what grounds the applicant bases his or her application and, where applicable, the grounds for any decisions taken concerning the applicant. The other Member State may refuse to respond to the request submitted to it, if the communication of such information is likely to harm its essential interests or the protection of the liberties and fundamental rights of the person concerned or of others. In any event, communication of the information requested shall be subject to the written approval of the applicant for international protection, obtained by the requesting Member State. In that case, the applicant must know for what specific information he or she is giving his or her approval.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 4
4. Any request for information shall only be sent in the context of an individual application for international protection. It shall set out the grounds on which it is based and, where its purpose is to check whether there is a criterion that is likely to entail the responsibility of the requested Member State, shall state on what evidence, including relevant information from reliable sources on the ways and means by which applicants enter the territories of the Member States, or on what specific and verifiable part of the applicant’s statements it is based. It is understood that such relevant information from reliable sources is not in itself sufficient to determine the responsibility and the competence of a Member State under this Regulation, but it may contribute to the evaluation of other indications relating to an individual applicant.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 1500% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 5
5. The requested Member State shall be obliged to reply within two weeks. Any delays in the reply shall be duly justified. Non-compliance with the two week time limit shall not relieve the requested Member State of the obligation to reply. If the research carried out by the requested Member State which did not respect the maximum time limit withholds information which shows that it is responsible, the time limits provided for in Article 24 for submitting a request to take charge shall be extended by a period of time which shall be equivalent to the delay in the reply by the requested Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 6
6. The exchange of information shall be effected at the request of a Member State and may only take place between authorities whose designation by each Member State has been communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 47(1).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 7
7. The information exchanged may only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1. In each Member State such information may, depending on its type and the powers of the recipient authority, only be communicated to the authorities and courts and tribunals entrusted with: (a) determining the Member State responsible; (b) examining the application for international protection; (c) implementing any obligation arising under this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 7 – point a
(a) determining the Member State responsible;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 7 – point b
(b) examining the application for international protection;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 7 – point c
(c) implementing any obligation arising under this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 8
8. In each Member State concerned, a record shall be kept, in the individual file for the person concerned and/or in a register, of the transmission and receipt of information exchanged.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 47
Competent authorities and resources 1. Each Member State shall notify the Commission without delay of the specific authorities responsible for fulfilling the obligations arising under this Regulation, and any amendments thereto. The Member States shall ensure that those authorities have the necessary resources for carrying out their tasks and in particular for replying within the prescribed time limits to requests for information, requests to take charge, take back notifications and, if applicable, complying with their obligations under the allocation mechanism . 2. The Commission shall publish a consolidated list of the authorities referred to in paragraph 1 in the Official Journal of the European Union. Where there are amendments thereto, the Commission shall publish once a year an updated consolidated list. 3. The authorities referred to in paragraph 1 shall receive the necessary training with respect to the application of this Regulation. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish secure electronic transmission channels between the authorities referred to in paragraph 1 and between those authorities and the European Union Agency for Asylum for transmitting information, fingerprint data taken in accordance with Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation 603/2013/EU], requests, notifications, replies and all written correspondence and for ensuring that senders automatically receive an electronic proof of delivery. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).Article 47 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall notify the Commission without delay of the specific authorities responsible for fulfilling the obligations arising under this Regulation, and any amendments thereto. The Member States shall ensure that those authorities have the necessary resources for carrying out their tasks and in particular for replying within the prescribed time limits to requests for information, requests to take charge, take back notifications and, if applicable, complying with their obligations under the allocation mechanism .deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall publish a consolidated list of the authorities referred to in paragraph 1 in the Official Journal of the European Union. Where there are amendments thereto, the Commission shall publish once a year an updated consolidated list.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 3
3. The authorities referred to in paragraph 1 shall receive the necessary training with respect to the application of this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish secure electronic transmission channels between the authorities referred to in paragraph 1 and between those authorities and the European Union Agency for Asylum for transmitting information, fingerprint data taken in accordance with Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation 603/2013/EU], requests, notifications, replies and all written correspondence and for ensuring that senders automatically receive an electronic proof of delivery. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 48
Administrative arrangements 1. Member States may, on a bilateral basis, establish administrative arrangements between themselves concerning the practical details of the implementation of this Regulation, in order to facilitate its application and increase its effectiveness. Such arrangements may relate to: (a) exchanges of liaison officers; (b) simplification of the procedures and shortening of the time limits relating to transmission and the examination of requests to take charge of or take back applicants. 2. Member States may also maintain the administrative arrangements concluded under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013. To the extent that such arrangements are not compatible with this Regulation, the Member States concerned shall amend the arrangements in such a way as to eliminate any incompatibilities observrticle 48 deleted.
Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 1
1. Member States may, on a bilateral basis, establish administrative arrangements between themselves concerning the practical details of the implementation of this Regulation, in order to facilitate its application and increase its effectiveness. Such arrangements may relate to: (a) exchanges of liaison officers; (b) simplification of the procedures and shortening of the time limits relating to transmission and the examination of requests to take charge of or take back applicants.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) exchanges of liaison officers;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) simplification of the procedures and shortening of the time limits relating to transmission and the examination of requests to take charge of or take back applicants.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 2
2. Member States may also maintain the administrative arrangements concluded under Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 and Regulation (EU) No 604/2013. To the extent that such arrangements are not compatible with this Regulation, the Member States concerned shall amend the arrangements in such a way as to eliminate any incompatibilities observed.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 49
The European Union Agency for Asylum shall set up and facilitate the activities of a network of the competent authorities referred to in Article 47 (1), with a view to enhancing practical cooperation and information sharing on all matters rArticle 49 delaeted to the application of this Regulation, including the development of practical tools and guidance.Network of Dublin units
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 1
The European Union Agency for Asylum shall set up and facilitate the activities of a network of the competent authorities referred to in Article 47(1), with a view to enhancing practical cooperation and information sharing on all matters related to the application of this Regulation, including the development of practical tools and guidance.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 2
newdeleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33
(33) When the allocation mechanism applies, the applicants who lodged their applications in the benefitting Member State should be allocated to Member States which are below their share of applications on the basis of the reference key as applied to those Member States. Appropriate rules should be provided for in cases where an applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to national security or public order, especially rules as regards the exchange of information between competent asylum authorities of Member States. After the transfer, the Member State of allocation should determine the Member State responsible, and should become responsible for examining the application, unless the overriding responsible criteria, related in particular to the presence of family members, determine that a different Member State should be responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 50
Data security and data protection 1. Member States shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure the security of personal data processed under this Regulation and in particular to prevent unlawful or unauthorised access or disclosure, alteration or loss of personal data processed. 2. The competent supervisory authority or authorities of each Member State shall monitor the lawfulness of the processing of personal data by the authorities referred to in Article 47 of the Member State in question, including of the transmission to and from the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) and to the authorities competent for carrying out checks referred to in Article 40. 3. The processing of personal data by the European Union Agency for Asylum shall be subject to the monitoring of the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the provisions on data protection laid down in [Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010].Article 50 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 50 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure the security of personal data processed under this Regulation and in particular to prevent unlawful or unauthorised access or disclosure, alteration or loss of personal data processed.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 50 – paragraph 2
2. The competent supervisory authority or authorities of each Member State shall monitor the lawfulness of the processing of personal data by the authorities referred to in Article 47 of the Member State in question, including of the transmission to and from the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) and to the authorities competent for carrying out checks referred to in Article 40.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 50 – paragraph 3
3. The processing of personal data by the European Union Agency for Asylum shall be subject to the monitoring of the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the provisions on data protection laid down in [Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010].deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 51
Member States shall ensure that the authorities referred to in Article 47 are bound by the confidentiality rules provided for in national law, in relation to any information they obtain in the course of their work.Article 51 deleted Confidentiality
Proposal for a regulation Article 51 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that the authorities referred to in Article 47 are bound by the confidentiality rules provided for in national law, in relation to any information they obtain in the course of their work.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 52
Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties, including administrative and/or criminal penalties in accordance with national law, applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.Article 52 deleted Penalties
Proposal for a regulation Article 52 – paragraph 1
Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties, including administrative and/or criminal penalties in accordance with national law, applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 53
Where an application has been lodged after [the first day following the entry into force of this Regulation] , the events that are likely to entail the responsibility of a Member State under this Regulation shall be taken into consideration, even if they precede that date. By way of derogation from Article 34(2), during the first three months after entry into force of this Regulation, the corrective allocation mechanism shall not be triggered. By way of derogation from Article 34(3), after the expiry of the three month period following the entry into force of this Regulation and until the expiry of one year following the entry into force of this Regulation, the reference period shall be the period which has elapsed since the entry into force of this Regulation.Article 53 deleted Transitional measures
Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 1
Where an application has been lodged after [the first day following the entry into force of this Regulation] , the events that are likely to entail the responsibility of a Member State under this Regulation shall be taken into consideration, even if they precede that date.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 34
(34) Under the allocation mechanism, the costs of transfer of an applicant to the Member State of allocation should be reimbursed from the EU budget.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 2
By way of derogation from Article 34(2), during the first three months after entry into force of this Regulation, the corrective allocation mechanism shall not be triggered. By way of derogation from Article 34(3), after the expiry of the three month period following the entry into force of this Regulation and until the expiry of one year following the entry into force of this Regulation, the reference period shall be the period which has elapsed since the entry into force of this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 54
Any period of time prescribed in this Regulation shall be calculated as follows: (a) where a period expressed in days, weeks or months is to be calculated from the moment at which an event occurs or an action takes place, the day during which that event occurs or that action takes place shall not be counted as falling within the period in question; (b) a period expressed in weeks or months shall end with the expiry of whichever day in the last week or month is the same day of the week or falls on the same date as the day during which the event or action from which the period is to be calculated occurred or took place. If, in a period expressed in months, the day on which it should expire does not occur in the last month, the period shall end with the expiry of the last day of that month; (c) time limits shall include Saturdays, Sundays and official holidays in any of the Member States concerned.Article 54 deleted Calculation of time limits
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 1
Any period of time prescribed in this Regulation shall be calculated as follows: (a) where a period expressed in days, weeks or months is to be calculated from the moment at which an event occurs or an action takes place, the day during which that event occurs or that action takes place shall not be counted as falling within the period in question; (b) a period expressed in weeks or months shall end with the expiry of whichever day in the last week or month is the same day of the week or falls on the same date as the day during which the event or action from which the period is to be calculated occurred or took place. If, in a period expressed in months, the day on which it should expire does not occur in the last month, the period shall end with the expiry of the last day of that month; (c) time limits shall include Saturdays, Sundays and official holidays in any of the Member States concerned.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) where a period expressed in days, weeks or months is to be calculated from the moment at which an event occurs or an action takes place, the day during which that event occurs or that action takes place shall not be counted as falling within the period in question;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a period expressed in weeks or months shall end with the expiry of whichever day in the last week or month is the same day of the week or falls on the same date as the day during which the event or action from which the period is to be calculated occurred or took place. If, in a period expressed in months, the day on which it should expire does not occur in the last month, the period shall end with the expiry of the last day of that month;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) time limits shall include Saturdays, Sundays and official holidays in any of the Member States concerndeleted.
Proposal for a regulation Article 55
As far as the French Republic is concerned, this Regulation shall apply only to its European territory.rticle 55 deleted Territorial scope
Proposal for a regulation Article 55 – paragraph 1
As far as the French Republic is concerned, this Regulation shall apply only to its European territory.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 56
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. 2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply. Where the committee delivers no opinion, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act and the third subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.Article 56 deleted Comitology
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 34
(34) Under the allocation mechanism, the costs of transfer of an applicant to the Member State of allocation should be reimbursed from the EU budget as an EUR 500 lump sum per person transferred.
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply. Where the committee delivers no opinion, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act and the third subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where the committee delivers no opinion, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act and the third subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 57
1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 10(6) and 18(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. The Commission shall produce a report on the delegation of power within nine months of the five-year period coming to an end. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 10(6) and 18(3) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. Before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall consult experts designated by each Member State in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. 5. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 6 A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 10(6) and 18(3) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.Article 57 deleted Exercise of the delegation
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 1
1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 2
2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 10(6) and 18(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. The Commission shall produce a report on the delegation of power within nine months of the five-year period coming to an end. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 3
3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 10(6) and 18(3) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 4
4. Before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall consult experts designated by each Member State in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016.
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 5
5. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 6
6 A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 10(6) and 18(3) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 58
Review, monitoring and evaluation By [18 months after entry into force] and from then on annually, the Commission shall review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation and in particular the thresholds set out in Article 34(2) and Article 43 thereof. By [three years after entry into force] , the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation and, where appropriate, shall propose the necessary amendments. Member States shall forward to the Commission all information appropriate for the preparation of that report, at the latest six months before that time limit expires. After having submitted that report, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation at the same time as it submits reports on the implementation of the Eurodac system provided for by Article 42 of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013].Article 58 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 1
By [18 months after entry into force] and from then on annually, the Commission shall review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation and in particular the thresholds set out in Article 34(2) and Article 43 thereof.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 1
By [182 months after entry into force] and from then on annuallyevery six months, the Commission shall review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation and in particular the thresholds set out in Article 34(2) and Article 43 thereof.
Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 2
By [three years after entry into force], the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation and, where appropriate, shall propose the necessary amendments. Member States shall forward to the Commission all information appropriate for the preparation of that report, at the latest six months before that time limit expires.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 2
By [three year18 months after entry into force], the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation and, where appropriate, shall propose the necessary amendments. Member States shall forward to the Commission all information appropriate for the preparation of that report, at the latest six months before that time limit expires.
Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 3
After having submitted that report, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation at the same time as it submits reports on the implementation of the Eurodac system provided for by Article 42 of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013].deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 59
In accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council26, Member States shall communicate to the Commission (Eurostat), statistics concerning the application of this Regulation and of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003. 2. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall publish at quarterly intervals the information transmitted pursuant to Article 34(4). _________________ 26Regulation (EU) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection (OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 23).Article 59 deleted Statistics
Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 1
In accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council26 , Member States shall communicate to the Commission (Eurostat), statistics concerning the application of this Regulation and of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003. _________________ 26Regulation (EU) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection (OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 23).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 2
2. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall publish at quarterly intervals the information transmitted pursuant to Article 34(4).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The European Union Agency for Asylum shall publish at quarterly intervals the information transmitted pursuant to Article 34(4).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
newdeleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 60
Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 is repealed for the Member States bound by this Regulation as concerns their obligations in their relations between themselves. References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II.Article 60 deleted Repeal
Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 1
Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 is repealed for the Member States bound by this Regulation as concerns their obligations in their relations between themselves.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 2
References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 61
Entry into force and applicability This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It shall apply to applications for international protection lodged as from [ the first day following its entry into force ] . The Member State responsible for the examination of an application for international protection submitted before that date shall be determined in accordance with the criteria set out in Regulation 604/2013272829. THIS PARAGRAPH IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE.30 This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties. _________________ 27 THIS FOOTNOTE IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE. 28 THIS FOOTNOTE IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE. 29 THIS FOOTNOTE IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE. 30 THIS FOOTNOTE IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE.Article 61 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 1
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 2
It shall apply to applications for international protection lodged as from [ the first day following its entry into force ] . The Member State responsible for the examination of an application for international protection submitted before that date shall be determined in accordance with the criteria set out in Regulation 604/201327 28 29. _________________ 27 THIS FOOTNOTE IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE. 28 THIS FOOTNOTE IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE. 29 THIS FOOTNOTE IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 4
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Annex I
Formula for the reference key pursuant to Article 35 of the Regulation: Population effectMS31 GDP effectMS32 ShareMS = 50% Population effectMS + 50% GDP effectMS _________________ 31For three Member States, participation depends on the exercise of rights as set out in the relevant Protocols and other instruments. 32For three Member States, participation depends on the exercise of rights as set out in the relevant Protocols and other instruments.deleted
Formula for the reference key pursuant to Article 35 of the Regulation:deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this informatThe return of third-country nationals who do not have the right to stay in the Union ins the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity principal aim of the comprehensive efforts being made to address migration and, in particular, to reduce and deter irregular migration. It is vital to increase the effectiveness of the Union system for the return of illegally staying third-countribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examiny nationals in order to maintain public trust ing those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanisme Union migration and asylum system, and these efforts should go hand in han implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanismd with the efforts to safeguard those in need of protection.
Proposal for a regulation Annex I – paragraph 1
Population effectMS31 _________________ 31For three Member States, participation depends on the exercise of rights as set out in the relevant Protocols and other instruments.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Annex I – paragraph 2
GDP effectMS32 _________________ 32For three Member States, participation depends on the exercise of rights as set out in the relevant Protocols and other instruments.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Annex I – subheading 2
ShareMS = 50% Population effectMS + 50% GDP effectMSdeleted
Proposal for a regulation Annex II
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Annex II – subheading 1
CORRELATION TABLEdeleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 36
(36) In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/200322 , transfers to the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection may be carried out on a voluntary basis, by supervised departure or under escort. Member States should promote voluntary transfers by providing adequate information to the applicant and should ensure that supervised or escorted transfers are undertaken in a humane manner, in full compliance with fundamental rights and respect for human dignity, as well as the best interests of the child and taking utmost account of developments in the relevant case law, in particular as regards transfers on humanitarian grounds. _________________ 22 OJ L 222, 5.9.2003, p. 3.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 36
(36) In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/200322 , transfers to the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection may be carried out on a voluntary basis, by supervised departure or under escort. Member States should promote voluntary transfers by providing adequate information to the applicant and should ensure that supervised or escorted transfers are undertaken in a humane manner, in full compliance with fundamental rights and respect for human dignity, as well as the best interests of the child and taking utmost account of developments in the relevant case law, in particular as rThe return of third-country nationals who do not have the right to stay in the Union is the principal aim of the comprehensive efforts being made to address migration and, in particular, to reduce and deter irregular migration. It is vital to increase the effectiveness of the Union system for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals in order to maintain public trust in the Union migration and asylum system, and these efforts should go hand in hand with the efforts to safeguards transfers on humanitarian grounds. _________________ 22hose in need of protection. OJ L 222, 5.9.2003, p. 3.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 37
(37) The progressive creation of an area without internal frontiers in which free movement of persons is guaranteed in accordance with the TFEU and the establishment of Union policies regarding the conditions of entry and stay of third- country nationals, including common efforts towards the management of external borders, makes it necessary to strike a balance between responsibility criteria in a spirit of solidarityhas proved to be dangerous for peoples, given that today it represents a formidable aid in carrying out acts of terrorism.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 38
(38) The [General Data Protection Regulation (EU) .../2016] applies to the processing of personal data by the Member States under this Regulation from the date set out in that Regulation; until this date Directive 95/46/EC applies. Member States should implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with that Regulation and the provisions specifying its requirements in this Regulation. In particular those measures should ensure the security of personal data processed under this Regulation and in particular to prevent unlawful or unauthorised access or disclosure, alteration or loss of personal data processed. The competent supervisory authority or authorities of each Member State should monitor the lawfulness of the processing of personal data by the authorities concerned, including of the transmission to and from the automated system and to the authorities competent for carrying out security checks.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 38
(38) The [General Data Protection Regulation (EU) .../2016] applies to the processing of personal data by the Member States under this Regulation from the date set out in that Regulation; until this date Directive 95/46/EC applies. Member States should implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with that Regulation and the provisions specifying its requirements in this Regulation. In particular those measures should ensure the security of personal data processed under this Regulation and in particular to prevent unlawful or unauthorised access or disclosure, alteration or loss of personal data processed. The competent supervisory authority or authorities of each Member State should monitor the lawfulness of the processing of personal data by the authorities concerned, including of the transmission to and from the automated system and to the authorities competent for carrying out security checksreturn of third-country nationals who do not have the right to stay in the Union is the principal aim of the comprehensive efforts being made to address migration and, in particular, to reduce and deter irregular migration. It is vital to increase the effectiveness of the Union system for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals in order to maintain public trust in the Union migration and asylum system, and these efforts should go hand in hand with the efforts to safeguard those in need of protection.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 39
(39) The processing of personal data by the European Union Agency for Asylum should be subject to the monitoring of the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the provisions on data protection laid down in [Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010].deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 39
(39) The processing of personal data by the European Union Agency for Asylum should be subject to the monitoring of the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the provisions on data protection laid down in [Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010]return of third-country nationals who do not have the right to stay in the Union is the principal aim of the comprehensive efforts being made to address migration and, in particular, to reduce and deter irregular migration. It is vital to increase the effectiveness of the Union system for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals in order to maintain public trust in the Union migration and asylum system, and these efforts should go hand in hand with the efforts to safeguard those in need of protection.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 40
(40) The application of this Regulation can be facilitated, and its effectiveness increased, by bilateral arrangements between Member States for improving communication between competent departments, reducing time limits for procedures or simplifying the processing of requests to take charge or take back, or establishing procedures for the performance of transfers.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 40
(40) The application of this Regulation can be facilitated, and its effectiveness increased, byInstead of a pointless Regulation, bilateral arrangements between Member States for improving communication between competent departments, reducing time limits for procedures or simplifying the processing of requests to take charge or take back, or establishing procedures for the performance of transfers should be encouraged.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 41
(41) Continuity between the system for determining the Member State responsible established by Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 and the system established by this Regulation should be ensured. Similarly, consistency should be ensured between this Regulation and Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council] .deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 42
(42) A network of competent Member State authorities should be set up and facilitated by the European Union Agency for Asylum to enhance practical cooperation and information sharing on all matters related to the application of this Regulation, including the development of practical tools and guidance.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 43
(43) The operation of the Eurodac system, as established by Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council], should facilitate the application of this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 44
(44) The operation of the Visa Information System, as established by Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 , and in particular the implementation of Articles 21 and 22 thereof, should facilitate the application of this Regulation. _________________ 23 Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 60).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 45
(45) With respect to the treatment of persons falling within the scope of this Regulation, Member States are bound by their obligations under instruments of international law, including the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 46
(46) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers24 . _________________ 24 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 47
(47) The examination procedure should be used for the adoption of a common leaflet on Dublin/Eurodac, as well as a specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors; of a standard form for the exchange of relevant information on unaccompanied minors; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information on minors and dependent persons; of uniform conditions on the preparation and submission of take charge requests and take back notifications ; of two lists of relevant elements of proof and circumstantial evidence, and the periodical revision thereof; of a laissez passer; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information regarding transfers; of a standard form for the exchange of data before a transfer; of a common health certificate; of uniform conditions and practical arrangements for the exchange of information on a person’s health data before a transfer, and of secure electronic transmission channels for the transmission of requests.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 48
(48) In order to provide for supplementary rules, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the identification of family members or relatives of an unaccompanied minor; the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a relative to take care of an unaccompanied minor, including where family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor stay in more than one Member State; the elements for assessing a dependency link; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a person to take care of a dependent person and the elements to be taken into account in order to assess the inability to travel for a significant period of time. In exercising its powers to adopt delegated acts, the Commission shall not exceed the scope of the best interests of the child as provided for under Article 8 of this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. .deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 49
(49) In the application of this Regulation, including the preparation of delegated acts, the Commission should consult experts from, among others, all relevant national authorities.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 50
(50) Detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 have been laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003. Certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 as amended by Regulation 118/2014 should be incorporated into this Regulation, either for reasons of clarity or because they can serve a general objective. In particular, it is important, both for the Member States and the applicants concerned, that there should be a general mechanism for finding a solution in cases where Member States differ over the application of a provision of this Regulation. It is therefore justified to incorporate the mechanism provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 for the settling of disputes on the humanitarian clause into this Regulation and to extend its scope to the entirety of this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 51
(51) The effective monitoring of the application of this Regulation requires that it be evaluated at regular intervals.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 52
(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 53
(53) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles which are acknowledged, in particular, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Regulation seeks to ensure full observance of the right to asylum guaranteed by Article 18 of the Charter as well as the rights recognised under Articles 1, 4, 7, 24 and 47 thereof. This Regulation should therefore be applied accordingly.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 54
(54) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the establishment of 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, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of this Regulation, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 55
(55) [In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those Member States have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation] ORdeleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 55 – paragraph 1
[In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those Member States have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 55 – paragraph 2
ORdeleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 56
(56) [In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and are not bound by it or subject to its application.] ORdeleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 56 – paragraph 1
[In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and are not bound by it or subject to its application.]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 56 – paragraph 2
ORdeleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 53
(53) [In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, the United Kingdom is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 54
(54) In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Ireland has notified (, by letter of ...,) its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.] ORdeleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 54 – paragraph 1
In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Ireland has notified (, by letter of ...,) its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 54 – paragraph 2
ORdeleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 53
(53) In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom has notified (, by letter of ...,) its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 54
(54) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 57
(57) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application,deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 1
This Regulation lays down the criteria and mechanisms for determining the single 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 Member State responsible’).Article 1 deleted Subject matter
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Regulation lays down the criteria and mechanisms for determining the single 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 Member State responsible’).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘third-country national’ means any person who is not a citizen of the Union within the meaning of Article 20(1) TFEU and who is not national of a State which participates in this Regulation by virtue of an agreement with the Union;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) ‘application for international protection’ means an application for international protection as defined in Article 2(h) of Directive 2011/95/EU;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) ‘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;deleted
2017/03/28
AFET
164 amendments...
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State conducting the personal interview shall make a written summary thereof which shall contain at least the main information supplied by the applicant at the interview. This summary may eithershould take the form of a report or an identical standard form to be used by all Member States. The Member State shall ensure that the applicant and/or the legal advisor or other counsellor who is representing the applicant have timely access to the summary.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The best interests of the child shall be assessed on a systematic basis and shall be a primary consideration for Member States with respect to all procedures provided for in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The best interests of the child shall be athe primary consideration for Member States with respect to all procedures provided for in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The best interests of the child shall be athe primary consideration for Member States with respect to all procedures provided for in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Each Member State where an unaccompanied minor is obliged to be present shall ensure that a representative represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the relevant procedures provided for in this Regulation. The representative shall have the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration during the procedures carried out under this Regulation. Such representative shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the applicant’s file including the specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors. Upon arrival, a well-trained guardian shall be appointed immediately.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Each Member State where an unaccompanied minor is obliged to be present shall ensure that a representative represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the relevant procedures provided for in this Regulation. The representative shall have the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration during the procedures carried out under this Regulation. Such representative shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the applicant’s file including the specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Each Member State where an unaccompanied minor is obliged to be present shall ensure that a representative represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the relevant procedures provided for in this Regulation. The representative shall have the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration during the procedures carried out under this Regulation. Such representative shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the applicant’s file including the specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the relevant provisions in Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU. Due to the vulnerability of this group of applicants, unaccompanied minors should not be transferred to another Member State except if it is in the child's best interest.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the relevant provisions in Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU. Due to the vulnerability of this group of applicants, unaccompanied minors should not be transferred to another Member State except if it is in their best interest.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) the preservation of family life, including family reunification possibilities;
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the minor’'s well-being and social development, taking into particular consideration the minor's ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background and having regard, in addition, to the need for stability and continuity in care and custodial arrangements and access to health and education services;
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) safety and security considerations, in particular where there is a risk of the minor being a victim of any form of violence and exploitation, including human trafficking;
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point δ
(d) the views of the minor, in accordance with his or her age and maturity.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The concept of first country of asylum referred to in article 3(3)(a) of this Regulation may only be applied to accompanied minors when it is in their best interests and where the authorities of Member States have first received from the authorities of the third country in question the assurance that the accompanied minor shall immediately benefit from one of the forms of protection referred to in paragraph 1, article 44, of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Procedures Regulation). The accelerated examination procedure referred to in article 3(3)(b) and 5(1) of this Regulation shall not be applied to minors, whether unaccompanied or not.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to the Member State responsible or, where applicable, to the Member State of allocation, the transferring Member State shall make sure that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor shall be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests, through a prioritised procedure pursuant to Article 31(7) of Directive 2013/32/EU. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3. The assessment shall be done swiftly by staff with the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to the Member State responsible or, where applicable, to the Member State of allocation, the transferring Member State shall make sure that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor shall be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests, through a prioritized procedure pursuant to Directive 2013/32/EU. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3. The assessment shall be done swiftly by staff with the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph new5 – subparagraph 1
All applications for international protection and requests for family reunification of unaccompanied minors shall be treated with priority. For the purpose of applying Article 10, the Member State where the unaccompanied minor lodged an application for international protection shall, as soon as possible, take appropriate action to identify the family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor on the territory of Member States, whilst protecting the best interests of the child.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph νέο5 – subparagraph 1
For the purpose of applying Article 10, the Member State where the unaccompanied minor lodged an application for international protectionEuropean Union organisation for asylum shall, as soon as possible, take appropriate action to identify the family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor on the territory of Member States, whilst protecting the best interests of the child.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph νέο5 – subparagraph 2
To that end, that Member State may call for the assistance of international or other relevant organisations, and may facilitate the minor’s access to the tracing services of such organisations.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph new5 – subparagraph 3
The staff of the competent authorities referred to in Article 47 who deal with requests concerning unaccompanied minors shall have received, and shall continue to receive, appropriate training concerning the specific needs of minors. This includes modules on risk assessment to target care and protection depending on the individual needs of the child, with a specific focus on early identification of victims of trafficking and abuse, and training on good practices to prevent disappearance.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are not likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member where anthe application is first lodged individually verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns.
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied only once, in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter.
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied only once, in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter.
2. The Member State responsible shall be that where a family member of the unaccompanied minor is legally present, provided that it is in the best interests of the minor. Where the applicant is a married minor whose spouse is not legally present on the territory of the Member States, the Member State responsible shall be the Member State where the father, mother or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, or sibling is legally present.(Does not affect the English version.)
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. Where family members or relatives as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, stay in more than one Member State, the Member State responsible shall be decided on the basis of the rules of corrective allocation and what is in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection,is present unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protectionis present, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor firstis present and has lodged his or heran asylum application for international protection, unless it is demonstrat, provided that this is not in the best interests of the minor.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor firstis present and has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor.
Where the applicant has a family member, regardless of whether the family was previously formed in the country of origin, who has been allowed to reside as a beneficiary of international protection in a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing of their own free will.
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) responsibility for examining the applications for international protection of all the family members and/or minor unmarried siblings shall lie with the Member State which the criteria indicate is responsible for taking charge of the largest number of them;
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) The concepts of safe countries and safe countries of origin should not prevent the identification of those seeking international protection, the individual examination of asylum applications and appropriate safeguards in respect of non- refoulement.
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the visa shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, unless the visa was issued on behalf of another Member State under a representation arrangement as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . In such a case, the represented Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. _________________ 25 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 4
4. The fact that the residence document or visa was issued on the basis of a false or assumed identity or on submission of forged, counterfeit or invalid documents shall not prevent responsibility being allocated to the Member State which issued it. However, the Member State issuing the residence document or visa shall not be responsible if it can establish that a fraud was committed after the document or visa had been issued. In this case, the State against which the fraud was committed may return the holder of invalid documents, provided that his or her life and physical integrity will not be endangered.
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease 12 months after the date on which the irregular border crossing took place.
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease 12 months after the date on which the irregular border crossing took place.
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease 12 months after the date on which the irregular border crossing took place.
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. It shall continue to bear this responsibility for a period of six months after the date of illegal entry.
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
2. When a Member State cannot or can no longer be held responsible in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4), that the applicant — who has entered the territories of the Member States irregularly or whose circumstances of entry cannot be established — has been living for a continuous period of at least five months in a Member State before lodging the application for international protection, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. If the applicant has been living for periods of time of at least five months in several Member States, the Member State where he or she has been living most recently shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The Member State in which an application for international protection is made and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible may, at any time before a Member State responsible has been determined, request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations or on the basis of family, cultural or social ties or language skills which would facilitate his or her integration into that other Member State, even where that other Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and 18. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing.
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The Member State in which an application for international protection is made and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible may, at any time before a Member State responsible has been determined , request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations ,or on the basis of family, cultural or social ties or language skills which would facilitate his of her integration into that other Member State even where that other Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and 18. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 19
(19) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the minor sibling or siblings of the applicant. Reuniting siblings is of particular importance for improving the chances of integration of applicants and hence reducing secondary movements. The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member State. This limited and targeted enlargement of the scope of the definition is expected to reduce the incentive for some secondary movements of asylum seekers within the EU.
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The Member State in which an application for international protection is madelodged and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible may, at any time before a Member State responsible has been determined, or the Member State responsible, request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations on humanitarian grounds based in particular on family or cultural considerations, even where that other Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and 18. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing.
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 a (new)
Article 20 a Cessation of responsibilities 1. Where a Member State issues a residence document to the applicant, the obligations specified in Article 20(1) shall be transferred to that Member State. 2. The obligations specified in Article 20(1) shall cease if the Member State responsible can establish, upon request to take charge or take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c) or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member State for at least three months, unless the person concerned is in possession of a valid residence document issued by the Member State responsible. An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the first subparagraph of this Article shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible. 3. The obligations specified in Article 20(1)(c) and (d) shall cease if the Member State responsible can establish, when requested to take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c) or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member State to comply with a return decision or removal order issued following the withdrawal or rejection of the application. An application lodged after an effective removal has taken place shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. The process of determining the Member State responsible shall start as soon as an application for international protection is first lodged with a Member State, provided that the Member State of first application is not already the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(4) or (5).
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 5
5. An applicant who is present in another Member State without a residence document or who there lodges an application for international protection after withdrawing his or her first application made in a different Member State during the process of determining the Member State responsible shall be taken back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, by the Member State with which that application for international protection was first lodged. That obligation shall cease if the Member State requested to complete the process of determining the Member State responsible can establish that the applicant has in the meantime left the territory of the Member State for a period of at least three months or has obtained a residence document from another Member State. An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the second subparagraph shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28
[...]deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new4
new4. The scope of the effective remedy laid down in paragraph 1 shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is subject to the procedure established by this Regulation. Detention shall always remain a measure of last resort and alternatives to detention shall always be a priority. Children shall not to be detained as detention can never be in the child's best interests.
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is subject to the procedure established by this Regulation. Detention shall always remain a measure of last resort and alternatives to detention shall always be a priority. Children shall not to be detained as detention can never be in the child's best interests.
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2
2. When there is a significant risk of absconding, Member States may detain the person concerned in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with this Regulation, on the basis of an individual assessment and only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively. When the person concerned is a minor, he or she shall not be detained.
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Minors, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, shall not be detained. In accordance with the principle of family unity, parents or legal or customary primary caregivers shall not be detained. Minors and families with minor children shall be accommodated together in non- custodial, community-based placements while their immigration status is being resolved.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 19
(19) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the sibling or siblings of the applicant. Reuniting siblings is of particular importance for improving the chances of integration of applicants and hence reducing secondary movements. The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member State, allowing for reunification with a married or unmarried partner and considering the specificities of de facto families and relationships. This limited and targeted enlargement of the scope of the definition is expected to reduce the incentive for some secondary movements of asylum seekers within the EU.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. The automatic, mandatory and permanent allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. During this time, take charge or take back requests shall be suspended.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 15075% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 15075% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 6
6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocation mechanism shall apply and all take charge or take back requests for that Member State shall be suspended.
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(b a) the unemployment rate;
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 3
3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Proposal for a regulation Recital 19
(19) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the sibling or siblings of the applicant. Reuniting siblings is of particular importance for improving the chances of integration of applicants and hence reducing secondary movements. The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit where the sibling or siblings is or are proven to be under the legal age of maturity. Reuniting siblings is of particular importance in order to increase the chances of integration of applicants and hence reduce secondary movements. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member State. This limited and targeted enlargement of the scope of the definition is expected to reduce the incentive for some secondary movements of asylum seekers within the EU.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of 3.At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been alloca2. deleted to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4.The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism. Obligations of the benefitting Member State The benefitting Member State shall:.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the benefitting Member State. The automated count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of 3.At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4.The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5.The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism. Obligations of the benefitting Member State The benefitting2. deleted The automated system referred to in reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the system referred to in Article 44(1) shall State which entered the information that Member State shall:.
Proposal for a regulation Article 42
Costs of allocation transfers For the costs to transfer an applicant to the Member State of allocation, the benefitting Member State shall be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 500 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c). This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.Article 42 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 1
The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 15075 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 1
The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 15075 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall notify the Commission without delay of the specific authorities responsible for fulfilling the obligations arising under this Regulation, and any amendments thereto. The Member States shall ensure that those authorities have the necessary resources for carrying out their tasks and in particular for replying within the prescribed time limits to requests for information, requests to take charge, take back notifications and, if applicable, complying with their obligations under the allocation mechanism . Any Member State may send requests to the Commission and other Member States detailing the necessary assistance, including the necessity of experts and interprets, needed in order to fulfil the obligations arising under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall publish a 2. consolidated list of the authorities referred to in paragraph 1 in the Official Journal of the European Union. Where there are amendments thereto, the Commission shall publish once a year an updated consolidated list.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that that Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representatives tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. Separated children, which are also legally considered as unaccompanied minors, is a distinct category that should require specific attention. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodgedis present his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that that Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representatives tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. In order to avoid excessive pressure on the social system of single Member States and ensure a fair sharing of responsibility, the corrective allocation mechanism should include specific provisions for unaccompanied minors. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. Separated children, which are also legally considered as unaccompanied minors, is a distinct category that should require specific attention. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protectionis present, unless it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that that Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representatives tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. In order to avoid an excessive pressure on the social system of single Member States and ensure a fair sharing of responsibility, the corrective allocation mechanism should include specific provisions for unaccompanied minors. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’'s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion, if this is in their best interests. In order to discourage secondary movements and unnecessary transfers of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative legally present in the territory of a Member State, the Member State responsible should be that wheree one in which the unaccompanied minor firstis present and has lodged his or heran asylum application for international protection, unless it is demonstrat, provided that this would not beis in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that thatminor. Where a transfer is in the best interests of an unaccompanied minor the receiving Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representatives tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. In case of non-compliance, proportional procedural consequences should follow. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise.
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor firstis present and has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that that Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representatives tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 21
(21) Assuming responsibility by a Member State for examining an application lodged with it in cases when such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation may undermine the effectiveness and sustainability of the system and should be exceptional. Therefore, a Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria only on humanitarian grounds, in particular for family reasons, before a Member State responsible has been determined and examine an application for international protection lodged with it or with another Member State, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the binding criteria laid down in this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 21
(21) Assuming responsibility by a Member State for examining an application lodged with it in cases when such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation may undermine the effectiveness and sustainability of the system and should be exceptional. Therefore, a Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria only on humanitarian grounds, in particular for family reasons, before a Member State responsible has been determined and examine an application for international protection lodged with it or with another Member State, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the binding criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22
(22) In order to ensure that the aims of this Regulation are achieved and obstacles to its application are prevented, in particular in order to avoid absconding and secondary movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation ofFailure to comply with those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant and to must not prejudice the right of the applicant to a fair and equitable process or entail unnecessary, inappropriate and disproportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate materialbasic needs of that person are covered.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 23
(23) A personal interview with the applicant should be organised in order to facilitate the determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible . As soon as the application for international protection is lodged, the applicant should be informed in particular of the application of this Regulation, of the lack of choice as to which Member State will examine his or her asylum application; of his or her obligations under this Regulation and of the consequences of not complying with them and of the possibility, during the interview, of providing information regarding the presence of family members, relatives or any other family relations in the Member States, in order to facilitate the procedure for determining the Member State responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 24
(24) In order to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the persons concerned, legal safeguards and the right to an effective remedy in respect of decisions regarding transfers to the Member State responsible should be established, in accordance, in particular, with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. An effective remedy should also be provided in situations when no transfer decision is taken but the applicant claims that another Member State is responsible on the basis that he has a family member or, for unaccompanied minors, a relative in another Member State. In order to ensure that international law is respected, an effective remedy against such decisions should cover both the examination of the application of this Regulation and of the legal and factual situation in the Member State to which the applicant is transferred. The scope of the effective remedy should be limited to an assessment of whether applicants' fundamental rights to respect of family life, the rights of the child, or the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment risk to be infringed upon.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 24
(24) Any person subject to this regulation should have the rights to an effective remedy, in the form of an appeal or review, pursuant to the applicable legislation. In order to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the persons concerned, legal safeguards and the right to an effective remedy in respect of decisions regarding transfers to the Member State responsible should be established, in accordance, in particular, with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. An effective remedy should also be provided in situations when no transfer decision is taken but the applicant claims that another Member State is responsible on the basis that he has a family member or, for unaccompanied minors, a relative in another Member State. In order to ensure that international law isand the relevant case-law are respected, an effective remedy against such decisions should cover both the examination of the application of this Regulation and of the legal and factual situation in the Member State to which the applicant is transferred. The or returned. The main scope of the effective remedy should be limited to an assessment of whether applicants' fundamental rights to respect of family life, the rights of the child, or the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment risk to be infringed upon.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 24
(24) All persons subject to this regulation should have the right to an effective remedy, in the form of an appeal or review, in fact and in law. In order to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the persons concerned, legal safeguards and the right to an effective remedy in respect of decisions regarding transfers to the Member State responsible should be established, in accordance, in particular, with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. An effective remedy should also be provided in situations when no transfer decision is taken but the applicant claims that another Member State is responsible on the basis that he has a family member or, for unaccompanied minors, a relative in another Member State. In order to ensure that international law and the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as well as of the European Court of Human Rights is respected, an effective remedy against such decisions should cover both the examination of the application of this Regulation and of the legal and factual situation in the Member State to which the applicant is transferred or returned. The scope of the effective remedy should be limited to, in particular, concern an assessment of whether applicants' fundamental rights to respect of family life, the rights of the child, or the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment risk to be infringed upon.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 24
(24) In order to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the persons concerned, legal safeguards and the right to an effective remedy in respect of decisions regarding transfers to the Member State responsible should be established, in accordance, in particular, with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. An effective remedy should also be provided in situations when no transfer decision is taken but the applicant claims that another Member State is responsible on the basis that he has a family member or, for unaccompanied minors, a relative in another Member State, provided that such a transfer is in the interests of the child. In order to ensure that international law is respected, an effective remedy against such decisions should cover both the examination of the application of this Regulation and of the legal and factual situation in the Member State to which the applicant is transferred. The scope of the effective remedy should be limited to an assessment of whether applicants' fundamental rights to respect of family life, the rights of the child, or the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment risk to be infringed upon.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 25
(25) The Member State which is determined as responsible under this Regulation shcould remainbe held responsible for examination of each and every application of that applicant, including any subsequent application, in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States. Provisions in Regulation (EU) 604/2013 which had provided for the cessation of responsibility in certain circumstances, including when deadlines for the carrying out of transfers had elapsed for a certain period of time, hadmay have created an incentive for absconding, and should thereforeome of them could be removed.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 26
(26) In order to ensure the speedy determination of responsibility and allocation of applicants for international protection between Member States, the deadlines for making and replying to requests to take charge, for making take back notifications, and for carrying out transfers, as well as for making and deciding on appeals, should be streamlined and shortened to the greatest extent possible, while respecting the rights of vulnerable persons, in particular the rights of the child and the fundamental principle of the best interests of the child and the principle of family reunification.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 26
(26) In order to ensure the speedy determination of responsibility and allocation of applicants for international protection between Member States, the deadlines for making and replying to requests to take charge, for making take back notifications, and for carrying out transfers, as well as for making and deciding on appeals, should be streamlined and shortened to the greatest extent possible while respecting the fundamental rights of applicants.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 28
(28) Deficiencies in, or the collapse of, asylum systems, especially in the Member States of first arrival; often aggravated or contributed to by particular pressures on them, can jeopardise the smooth functioning of the system put in place under this Regulation, which could leading to a risk of a violation of the rights of applicants as set out in the Union asylum acquis and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, other international human rights and refugee rights.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the reference key, but taking in consideration the applicant preference motivated by familiar reunification. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation. The unaccompanied minors represent a distinct category, and should therefore require specific attention and a distinct key to be applied.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically, but also taking into account a wish of preference of the applicant especially if motivated by familiar reunification where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation. The category of unaccompanied minors should require particular attention and a distinct key should be determined for them with the same calculation formula.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population, the economy and of the economyunemployment of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 15075% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation. As soon as this mechanism has been activated, all take back requests should be suspended.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of, the economy and unemployment of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 15075% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation. As soon as this mechanism is triggered, take back requests should be suspended.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States, and on the unemployment rate and the degree of stability in neighbouring third countries, should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 1500 % of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33
(33) When the allocation mechanism applies, the applicants who lodged their applications in the benefitting Member State of entry should be allocated to Member States which are below their share of applications on the basis of the reference key as applied to those Member States. Appropriate rules should be provided for in cases where an applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to national security or public order, especially rules as regards the exchange of information between competent asylum authorities of Member States. After the transfer, the Member State of allocation should determine the Member State responsible, and should become responsible for examining the application, unless the overriding responsible criteria, related in particular to the presence of family members, determine that a different Member State should be responsiblIn the above case, the applicant should not be granted asylum and should be sent back so as not to transfer the problem to another Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 34
(34) Under the allocation mechanism, the costs of transfer of an applicant to the Member State of allocation should be reimbursed from the EU budget.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation mayFull compliance of Member States with their obligations for the application of the corrective allocation mechanism should be mandatory. Where a Member State of allocation decides not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanismSuch mechanism should be monitored by the European Commission and, in cases of non compliance, corrective measures should be taken immediately.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months- period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system, fully justified, and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. After the elapse of the above period, the Member State of allocation is obliged to accept the asylum seekers on its territory. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 42
(42) A network of competent Member State authorities should be set up and facilitated by the European Union Agency for Asylum to enhance practical cooperation and information sharing on all matters related to the application of this Regulation, including the development of practical tools and guidance. This network should be able to collaborate with the authorities of transit countries and countries of origin as well as with international organisations, in particular the United Nations Agencies and non- governmental organisations.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) In order to prevent applicants whose applications are inadmissible, or who are unlikely to require international protection, from undertaking a potentially dangerous journey from their country of origin to a Member State, the European Union Agency for Asylum, in cooperation with the Commission and the Member States, should ensure that potential migrants are informed about the legal entry routes into the Union and the risks of illegal migration.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 52
(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation. In this regard, the Commission should publish at regular intervals the number of applications for international protection received in each Member State, including the positive response rate, the origin of the applicants and the processing time for each application.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 52
(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should, at the request of a Member State, review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – introductory part
(g) ‘'family members’' means, insofar as the family already existed before the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States , the following members of the applicant’'s family who are present on the territory of the Member States:
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point ζ – introductory part
(g) ‘family members’ means, insofar as the family already existed before the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States ,- which must have been established previously - the following members of the applicant’s family who are present on the territory of the Member States:
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 1
– the spouse of the applicant or beneficiary of international protection or his or her unmarried partner in a stable relationship, where the law or practice of the country of origin or of the Member State concerned treats unmarried couples in a way comparable to married couples under its law relating to third-country nationals,
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 2
– the minor children of couples referred to in the first indent or of the applicant, on condition that they are unmarried andr beneficiary, regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law, and the children for whom they bear legal or customary primary responsibility, on condition that they are unmarried or, when they are married, that it is in their best interests, taking due account of their views, to form a family with their parents or legal or customary primary caregiver,
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 3
– when the applicant is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for the applicant, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the adult isthe father, mother, or another adult responsible for the applicant whether by law or practice of the country of origin or of the Member State where the adult is present, on condition that the applicant is a minor and unmarried or, when he or she is a married minor, that it is in his or her best interests, taking due account of his or her views, to form a family with his or her parent or parents or legal or customary primary caregiver. Minor siblings accompanying the father, mother or legal or customary primary caregiver are also considered as family members on condition that they are unmarried or, when they are married, that it is in their best interest, taking due account of their views, to form a family with their paresent or parents or legal or customary primary caregiver,
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 4
– when the beneficiary of international protectionthe father, mother, or another adult responsible for the applicant whether by law or practice of the country of origin or of the Member State where the beneficiary is present, on condition that the applicant is a minor and unmarried or, twhe father, mother or another adult responsible forn he or she is a married minor, that it is in his or her best interests, taking due account of his or her views, to form a family with hims or her whether by law or by the practice of the Member State whereparent or parents or legal or customary primary caregiver. Minor siblings accompanying the father, mother or legal or customary primary caregiver are also considered as family members on condition that they are unmarried or, when they are married, that it is in their beneficiary isst interest, taking due account of their views, to form a family with their paresent,nt or parents or legal or customary primary caregiver;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5
– the sibling or siblings of the applicant or beneficiary of international protection;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5
– the sibling or siblings of the applicant under the legal age of majority;
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10
(10) In the light of the results of the evaluation undertaken of the implementation of Regulation (EU) 604/2013 , it is appropriate, at this stage, to confirm the principles underlying Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, while making the necessary improvements, in the light of experience, to the effectiveness of the Dublin system and the protection granted to applicants under that system. Based on this evaluation and on consultation with Member States, the European Parliament and other stakeholders, it is also considered appropriate to establish in the Regulation measures required for a fair share of responsibility between Member States for applications for international protection, in particular to ensure that a disproportionate burden is not placed upon some Member States of first arrival, such as Italy, that are clearly struggling to cope with the migrant flow.
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point ζ – indent 5
– the minor sibling or siblings of the applicant;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point j
(j) ‘unaccompanied minor’ means a minor who arrives on the territory of the Member States unaccompanied by an adult responsible for him or her, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State concerned, and for as long as he or she is not effectively taken into the care of such an adult; it includes a minor who is left unaccompanied after he or she has entered the territory of Member States, as well as minors who have been separated from both parents or from their previous legal or customary primary care-giver;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point j
(j) ‘unaccompanied minor’ means a minor who arrives on the territory of the Member States unaccompanied by an adult responsible for him or her, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State concerned, and for as long as he or she is not effectively taken into the care of such an adult; it includes a minor who is left unaccompanied after he or she has entered the territory of Member States, as well as minors who have been separated from both parents or from their previous legal or customary primary care-giver;
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall examine any application for international protection by a third-country national or a stateless person who applies on the territory of any one of them, including at the border or in the transit zones. Member States shall instruct their diplomatic representations in third countries to consider applications for international protection in order to avoid excessive pressure on the asylum systems of frontline Member States. The application shall be examined by a single Member State, which shall be the one which the criteria set out in Chapter III indicate is responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because it carries already a disproportioned share of responsibility or because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the determining Member State shall continue to examine the criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether another Member State can be designated as responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Before applying the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall: (a)examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; and (b)examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: (i)the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or (ii)the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Before applying the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall: (a)examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; and (b)examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: (i)the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or (ii) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Before applying the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall: (a) examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; and (b) examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: (i) the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or (ii) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Before applying the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall: (a) examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; and (b) examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: (i) the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or (ii) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Before applying the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged, or in the case of an unaccompanied minor the Member State in which the minor is present after having lodged an asylum application if he or she has lodged asylum applications in more than one Member State, shall:
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10
(10) In the light of the results of the evaluation undertaken of the implementation of Regulation (EU) 604/2013 , it is appropriate, at this stage, to confirm the principles underlying Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, while making the necessary improvements, in the light of experience, to the effectiveness of the Dublin system and the protection granted to applicantsreinforcing the conventions for crisis management and migrant flow set out under thate Dublin system. Based on this evaluation and on consultation with Member States, the European Parliament and other stakeholders, it is also considered appropriate to establish in the Regulation measures required for a fair share of responsibility between Member States for applications for international protection, in particular to ensure that a disproportionate burden is not placed upon some Member States.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Before applyAny Member State shall retaing the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall:ght to send an applicant to a safe third country, subject to the rules and safeguards laid down in Directive 2013/32/EU.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; andeleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; and
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point b – point i
(i) the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; ordeleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State considers an application inadmissible or examines an application in accelerated procedure pursuant to paragraph 3, that Member State shall be considered the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State considers an application inadmissible or examines an application in accelerated procedure pursuant to paragraph 3, that Member State shall be considered the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whetherunless the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States for one year or more.
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection has entered irregularly into the territory of the Member States, the application shall be made in the Member State of that first where he or she is presentry. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection is legally present in a Member State, the application shall be made in that Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) The migration flow management difficulties encountered at reception and sorting centres ('hotspots') in the Member States of first arrival demonstrate the need for a more cooperative and concrete approach.
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection has entered irregularly into the territory of the Member States, the application shall be made in the Member State of that first where he or she is presentry. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection is legally present in a Member State, the application shall be made in that Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) be present andremain available to the competent authorities in the Member State of application, respectively in the Member State to which he or she is transferred.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. If an applicant does not comply with the obligation set out in Article 4(1), the Member State responsible in accordance with this Regulation shall examine the application in an accelerated procedure, in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State.deleted
2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member Stathas been relocated shall be the one responsible for bearing the consequences of non-compliance.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be presentrequired to remain available to the competent authorities shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisrelevant justification or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care, during the procedures under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care, during the procedures under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present. Paragraph 3 shall not be applied to minors and families with minor children.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 12
(12) In order to ensure that beneficiaries of international protection who entered the territory of another Member State than the Member State responsible without fulfilling the conditions of stay in that other Member State are taken back by the Member State responsible, it is necessary to encompass beneficiaries of international protection in the scope of this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The competent authorities shall take into account elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible only insofar as these were submitted within the deadline set out in Article 4(2).
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) that the right to apply for international protection does not encompass any choice of the applicant which Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, except when he or she is eligible for family reunification;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) that the right to apply for international protection does not encompass any choice of the applicant which Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, except when he or she is eligible for family reunification;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) of the objectives of this Regulation and the consequences of making another application in a different Member State as well as the consequences of leaving the Member State where he or she is obliged to be present during the phases in which the Member State responsible under this Regulation is being determined and the application for international protection is being examined , in particular that the applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU in any Member State other than the one where he or she is required to be present, with the exception of emergency health care ;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) of the objectives of this Regulation and the consequences of making another application in a different Member State as well as the consequences of leaving the Member State where he or she is obliged to be presentrequired to remain available to the competent authorities during the phases in which the Member State responsible under this Regulation is being determined and the application for international protection is being examined , in particular that the applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU in any Member State other than the one where he or she is required to be present, with the exception of emergency health care ;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) of the personal interview pursuant to Article 7 and the obligationpossibility of submitting and substantiating information regarding the presence of family members, relatives or any other family relations in the Member States, including the means by which the applicant can submit such information;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where necessary for the proper understanding of the applicant, the information shall also be supplied orally, for example in connection with the personal interview as referred to in Article 7. Whenever the applicant is a minor, he or she shall be informed in a child- friendly manner.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The personal interview shall be conducted in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand and in which he or she is able to communicate, and, when necessary, in a child-friendly manner. Where necessary, Member States shall have recourse to an interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person conducting the personal interview.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Where requested by the applicant, the determining authority shall ensure, in so far as possible, that the interviewers and interpreters are of the same sex as the applicant and that the determining authority does not have reasons to believe that such a request is based on grounds which are not related to difficulties on the part of the applicant to present the grounds of his or her application in a comprehensive manner.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. The person conducting the interview shall be able to take account of the personal and general circumstances surrounding the application, including the applicant's cultural origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and vulnerability. Personnel interviewing applicants shall also have acquired a general knowledge of problems which could adversely affect the applicant's ability to be interviewed, such as indications that the person may have been tortured in the past.
2017/04/04
LIBE
413 amendments...
Proposal for a regulation –
The European Parliament rejects [the Commission proposal].
Proposal for a regulation –
The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.
Proposal for a regulation –
The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.
Draft legislative resolution Citation 5
— having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 19 October 20161 , _________________ 1deleted OJ C 34, 2.2.2017, p. 144.
Draft legislative resolution Citation 6
— having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 8 December 20162 , _________________ 2Not yet published in the Official Journal.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 67(2) and 78(2)(e) thereof,
Proposal for a regulation Citation 2 a (new)
Having regard to the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular Article 18 thereof;
Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) It should be reiterated that the much-celebrated European solidarity, articulated through the mechanism of asylum based on the Dublin rules and the corrective measures put in place in recent years (the relocation measures are an excellent example), has been a huge failure. If the Member States decide for legitimate reasons not to implement or honour fully and effectively a plan for sharing out the responsibilities and burdens associated with asylum, we must bravely acknowledge that the EU’s migration policy has failed. As a result, migration policy should no longer be set in Brussels and should therefore return to being under the exclusive jurisdiction of the individual Member States.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2
(2) An effective common policy on asylum, including a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), iscan be a constituent part of the European Union’s objective of progressively establishing an area of freedom, security and justice open to those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek protection seek asylum in the Union.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 3
(3) The European Council, at its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, agreed to work towards establishing the CEAS, based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 (‘the Geneva Convention’), thus ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution, i.e. maintaining the principle of non- refoulement. In this respect, and without the responsibility criteria laid down in this Regulation being affected, Member States, all respecting the principle of non- refoulement, are considered as safe countries for third-country nationals.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 3
(3) The European Council, at its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, agreed to work towards establishing the CEAS, based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 (‘the Geneva Convention’), thus ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution, i.e. maintaining the principle of non- refoulement. In this respect, and without the responsibility criteria laid down in this Regulation being affected, Member States, all respecting the principle of non- refoulement, are considered as safe countries for third-country nationals.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 5
(5) Such a method should be based on objective, fair criteria both for the Member States and for the persons concerned. It should, in particular, make it possible to determine rapidly the Member State responsible, on behalf of the European Union, so as to guarantee effective access to the procedures for granting international protection and not to compromise the objective of the rapid processing of applications for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 5
(5) Such a method should be based on the principle of solidarity and objective, fair criteria both for the Member States and for the persons concerned. It should, in particular, make it possible to determine rapidly the Member State responsible, so as to guarantee effective access to the procedures for granting international protection and not to compromise the objective of the rapid processing of applications for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 6
(6) The first phase in the creation of a CEAS that should lead, in the longer term, to a common procedure and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for those granted international protection, has now been completed. The European Council of 4 November 2004 adopted The Hague Programme which set the objectives to be implemented in the area of freedom, security and justice in the period 2005-2010. In this respect, The Hague Programme invited the European Commission to conclude the evaluation of the first-phase legal instruments and to submit the second-phase instruments and measures to the European Parliament and to the Council with a view to their adoption before 2010.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) Solidarity initiatives between Member States must be voluntary and take into account the added value of all types of contributions which Member States may make to the joint efforts of the EU to manage migration.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9
(9) The European Union Agency for Asylum should provide adequate support in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular by establishing the reference key for the distribution of asylum seekers under the corrective allocation mechanism, and by adapting the figures underlying the reference key annually, as well as the reference key based on Eurostat data.deleted
(9) The European Union Agency for Asylum (the "Asylum Agency") should provide adequate support in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular by establishing the reference key for the distribution of asylum seekers under the corrective allocation mechanism, and by adapting the figures underlying the reference key annually, as well as the reference key based on Eurostat data. The Asylum Agency should also develop information material in cooperation with the relevant authorities of the Member States. The Asylum Agency should assist and coordinate the transfer of applicants for, or beneficiaries of, international protection under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9
(9) The European Union Agency for Asylum should provide adequate support in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular by establishing the reference key for the distribution of asylum seekers under the corrective allocation mechanism, and by adapting the figures underlying the reference key annually, as well as the reference key based on Eurostat data. The Agency should also develop information material, in cooperation with the relevant authorities of the Member States. The Agency should gradually become responsible for the transfer of applicants for, or beneficiaries of, international protection under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9
(9) The European Union Agency for Asylum should provide adequate support in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular by establishing the reference key for the distribution of asylum seekers under the corrective allocation mechanism, and by adapting the figures underlying the reference key annually, as well as the reference key based on Eurostat data. The Agency should also develop information material, in close cooperation with the relevant authorities of the Member States. The Agency should be responsible for the transfer of applicants for, or beneficiaries of, international protection, under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9
(9) The European Union Agency for Asylum should provide adequate support in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular by establishing the reference key for the distribution of asylum seekers under the corrective allocation mechanism, and by adapting the figures underlying the reference key annuallyevery six months, as well as the reference key based on Eurostat data. The European Agency for Asylum should handle the transfers of applicants requesting international protection from one Member State to another in all the cases provided for by this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9
(9) The European Union Agency for Asylum should provide adequate support in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular by establishing the reference key for the distribution of asylum seekers under the corrective allocation mechanism, and by adapting the figures underlying the reference key annually, as well as the reference key based on Eurostat data.
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Petri SARVAMAA, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Mariya GABRIEL, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9
(9) The European Union Agency for Asylum should provide adequate support in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular by establishing the reference key for the distribution of asylum seekers under the corrective allocation mechanism, and by adapting the figures underlying the reference key annually, as well as the reference key based on Eurostat data.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9
(9) The European Union Agency for Asylum should provide adequate support in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular by establishing the reference key for the distribution of asylum seekers under the voluntary corrective allocation mechanism, and by adapting the figures underlying the reference key annually, as well as the reference key based on Eurostat data. The European Union Agency for Asylum should also develop information material, in close cooperation with the relevant authorities of the Member States.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9
(9) The European Union Agency for Asylum should provide adequate support in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular by establishing the reference key for the distribution of asylum seekers under the corrective allocation mechanism, and by adapting the figures underlying the reference key annually, as well as the reference key based on Eurostat data. The European Union Agency for Asylum should provide up-to-date information about third countries, particularly countries of origin of asylum seekers.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9
(9) The European Union Agency for Asylum should provide adequate support in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular by establish. Nevertheless, member states should maintaing the reference key for the distribuight to examine applications of asylum seekers under the corrective allocation mechanism, and by adapting the figures underlying the reference key annually, as well as the reference key based on Eurostat dataindividuals seeking international protection in their respective territories. The Asylum Agency should assist member states with eventual re- examinations through the provision of information material, which would be developed in close cooperation with the relevant authorities of the Member States.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10
(10) In the light of the results of the evaluation undertaken of the implementation of Regulation (EU) 604/2013 , it is appropriatenecessary, at this stage, to confirm the principles underlying Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, while making the necessary improvements, in the light of experience, to the effectiveness of the Dublin system and the protection granted to applicants under that system. Based on this evaluation and on consultation with Member States, the European Parliament and other stakeholders, it is also considered appropriate to establish in the Regulation measures required for adesign a new system in full respect of Article 78(1) TFEU based on a genuine link approach and fair share of responsibility and solidarity between Member States for applications for international protection, in particular to ensure that a disproportionate burden is not placed upon some Member States.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10
(10) In the light of the results of the evaluation undertaken of the implementation of Regulation (EU) 604/2013 , it is appropriate, at this stage, to confirm the principles underlying Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, while making the necessary improvements, in the light of experience, to the effectiveness of the Dublin system and the protection granted to applicants under that system. Based on this evaluation and on consultation with Member States, the European Parliament and other stakeholders, it is also considered appropriate to establish in the Regulation measures required for a fair share of responsibility between Member States for applications for international protection, in particular to ensure thatf and when a disproportionate burden is not placed upon somon one or more Member States.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11
(11) In order to ensure equal treatment for all applicants and beneficiaries of international protection, and consistency with the current Union asylum acquis, in particular with Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , the scope of this Regulation encompasses applicants for subsidiary protection and persons eligible for subsidiary protection. _________________ 18 Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ L 337, 20.12.2011, p. 9).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 15
(15) In accordance with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the best interests of the child should be athe primary consideration of Member States when applying this Regulation. In assessing the best interests of the child, Member States should, in particular, take due account of the minor’s well-being and social development, safety and security considerations and the views of the minor in accordance with his or her age and maturity, including his or her background. In addition, specific procedural guarantees for unaccompanied minors should be laid down on account of their particular vulnerability.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 16
(16) In accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, respect for family life should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying this Regulation, where a Member State does not recognise a particular long-standing stable partnership or marriage under its national law, it should be possible for the applicants to move to another Member State that does recognise such a relationship or partnership under its law.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 16
(16) In accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, respect for family lifeprivate and family life, as well as for the principle of non-discrimination, should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member State where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well asexamines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants presenting security concerns.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Laura AGEA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Tiziana BEGHIN, David BORRELLI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Piernicola PEDICINI, Marco VALLI, Marco ZULLO, Daniela AIUTO, Rosa D'AMATO, Eleonora EVI
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicantexamines in accelerated procedures applications made by applications presenting security concerns.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to improve the efficiency of the system, and to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessaryessential to ensure that the Member State where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member State where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims, or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk arefrom being transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member State where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 18
(18) The processing together of the applications for international protection of the members of one family by a single Member State makes it possible to ensure that the applications are examined thoroughly, the decisions taken in respect of them are consistent and the members of one family are not separated. The processing together of the applications of a family is without prejudice to the right of an applicant to lodge an application individually.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 19
(19) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the sibling or siblings of the applicant. Reuniting siblings is of particular importance for improving the chances of integration of applicants and hence reducing secondary movements. The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member State. This limited and targeted enlargement of the scope of the definition is expected to reduce the incentive for some secondary movements of asylum seekers within the EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 19
(19) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the sibling or siblings of the applicant. Reuniting siblings is of particular importance for improving the chances of integration of applicants and hence reducing secondary movements. The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member State. This limited and targeted enlargement of the scope of the definition is expected to reduce the incentive for some secondary movements of asylum seekers within the EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 19
(19) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the sibling or siblings of the applicant. Reuniting siblings, the grandparents of the applicant or beneficiary of international protection and the grandchildren of the applicant. Reuniting siblings the grandparents of the applicant or beneficiary of international protection and the grandchildren of the applicant is of particular importance for improving the chances of integration of applicants and hence reducing secondary movements. The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member State. This limited and targeted enlargement of the scope of the definition is expected to reduce the incentive for some secondary movements of asylum seekers within the EU.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 19
(19) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the sibling or siblings, grandparents and uncles or aunts of the applicant. Reuniting siblings, grandparents and uncles or aunts is of particular importance for improving the chances of integration of applicants and hence reducing secondary movements. The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member State. This limited and targeted enlargement of the scope of the definition is expected to reduce the incentive for some secondary movements of asylum seekers within the EU.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the presence of family members should become a binding responsibility criterion. In particular, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unlessis present, provided that, following a multidisciplinary assessment of the child's best interests, it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure thatobtain individualised guarantees from that Member State that it will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representativesguardian tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision on responsibility or to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an multidisciplinary assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise and the participation of his or her guardian and legal advisor or counsellor.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’'s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that that Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representatives tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise. If for any reason the age of the applicant is not clearly over 18 years of age the member state have the full right to medically investigate the applicant to establish the age of the applicant.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’'s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or heran application for international protection, unless it is demonstrat and is present, provided that this would not be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure thatobtain individualised guarantees from that Member State that it will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representativesguardian tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise. Any decision on responsibility in accordance with this Regulation concerning an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by a multidisciplinary assessment of his or her best interests which shall involve, at a minimum, his or her guardian and legal advisor or counsellor.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’'s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion, if this is in their best interests. In order to discourage secondary movements and unnecessary transfers of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative legally present in the territory of a Member State, the Member State responsible should be that wherein which the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this would not beis present, provided that this is in the best interests of the childminor. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that that Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representativesguardian tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an multidisciplinary assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise, which shall involve his or her guardian and legal advisor or counsellor.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be ththe absence of a family member or a relative, unaccompanied minors should not, as general rule, be transferred among Member States. Their application should be therefore examined by the Member State where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection,is present after having lodged an application, if provisions at Article 19 are not applicable and unless it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that that Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representatives tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Tiziana BEGHIN, David BORRELLI, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodgedis present when his or her application for international protection is lodged, unless it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that that Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representatives tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Dietmar KÖSTER, Birgit SIPPEL
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’'s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the childWhen the applicant is a minor who is accompanied by a parent, an adult sibling or another adult responsible for the minor, the legal presence of another parent or adult responsible for him or her in a Member State should also become a binding responsibility criterion. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure thatobtain individualised guarantees from thate Member State where the minor will be transferred that it will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representativesguardian tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision to transferon responsibility in accordance with this Regulation concerning an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an multidisciplinary assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise. which shall involve, at a minimum, his or her guardian and legal advisor or counsellor
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, and in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that that Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representatives tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 21
(21) Assuming responsibility by a Member State for examining an application lodged with it in cases when such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation may undermine the effectiveness and sustainability of the system and should be exceptional. Therefore, a Member State should only be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria only on humanitarian grounds, in particular for family reasons, before a Member State responsible has been determined and examine an application for international protection lodged with it or with another Member State, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the binding criteria laid down in this Regulation. A Member State may, at its own discretion, derogate from the responsibility criteria if they wish to accept a request from an applicant after another Member State has been determined responsible for the applicant but before the application has been examined. This requires the agreement of both the Member State responsible for the application and the Member State that would assume the responsibility for the application. This transfer of responsibility can happen once only, at the request of an applicant and the agreement of both Member States involved. In cases where the applicant's request is unsuccessful, responsibility remains with the Member State originally determined responsible and the applicant is not able to make another request to any other Member State to take responsibility for their application.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER, Birgit SIPPEL
Proposal for a regulation Recital 21
(21) Assuming responsibility by a Member State for examining an application lodged with it in cases when such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation may undermine the effectiveness and sustainability of the system and should be exceptional. Therefore, a Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria only on humanitarian grounds, in particular for family reasons, before a Member State responsible has been determined Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria and examine an application for international protection lodged with it or with another Member State, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the binding criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 21
(21) Assuming responsibility by a Member State for examining an application lodged with it in cases when such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation may undermine the effectiveness and sustainability of the system and should be exceptional. Therefore, a Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria only on humanitarian grounds, in particular for family reasons, before a Member State responsible has been determined Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria in particular on humanitarian grounds, and examine an application for international protection lodged with it or with another Member State, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the binding criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, David BORRELLI
Proposal for a regulation Recital 21
(21) Assuming responsibility by a Member State for examining an application lodged with it in cases when such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation may undermine the effectiveness and sustainability of the system and should beis exceptional. Therefore, a Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria only on humanitarian grounds, in particular for family reasons, before a Member State responsible has been determined and examine an application for international protection lodged with it or with another Member State, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the binding criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 21
(21) Assuming responsibility by a Member State Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria for example on humanitarian grounds, in particular for exfaminly reasons, and examinge an application lodged with it in cases whenfor international protection lodged with it or with another Member State, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the binding criteria laid down in this Regulation may undermine the effectiveness and sustainability of the system and should be exceptional. Therefore, a Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria only on humanitarian grounds, in particular for family reasons, before a Member State responsible has been determined and examine an application for international protection lodged with it or with another Member State, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the binding criteria laid down in this Regulat. In order to ensure full respect of the applicant's right to private and family life, and in order to improve the prospects of long-term integration of the applicants, the existence of meaningful links with a Member State, including language skills, education, professional skills or cultural ties which would facilitate his or her integration, should become a binding responsibility criterion.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22
(22) In order to ensure that the aims of this Regulation are achieved and obstacles to its application are prevented, in particular in order to avoid absconding and secondary movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation of those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are covered.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22
(22) In order to ensure that the aims of this Regulation are achieved and obstacles to its application are prevented, in particular in order to avoid absconding and secondary movements betweenits swift implementation, procedures should be put in place to ensure the cooperation of applicants and Member States, wit is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation of those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are coverh a clear system of incentives and disincentives to ensure compliance. It is also necessary to ensure that all applicants are appropriately informed of the application of this Regulation. The support and protection of minors, in particular unaccompanied minors, should be strengthened.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22
(22) In order to ensure that the aims of this Regulation are achieved and obstacles to its application are prevented, in particular in order to avoid absconding and secondary movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation of those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are coveredIn line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the reception needs, including access to healthcare, education and housing of that person are covered. The meaning of absconding should be strictly defined, in line with guidelines set up by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, and based on an assessment of the individual circumstances of the person involved carried out by a judicial authority, as encompassing both a deliberate action to avoid the applicable asylum procedures and the factual circumstance of not remaining available to the relevant authorities. Irregular entry, lack of an address or documents proving the identity of an applicant shall never constitute valid criteria to determine the existence of a risk of absconding.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22
(22) In order to ensure that the aims of this Regulation are achieved and obstacles to its application are prevented, in particular in order to avoid absconding and secondary movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation of those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are covered. Such restrictions in the reception conditions shall not apply to vulnerable groups, such as unaccompanied minors and families with children.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22
(22) In order to ensure that the aims of this Regulation are achieved and obstacles to its application are prevented, in particular in order to avoid absconding and secondary movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. VIn order to encourage applicants to comply and cooperate, violation of those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are covered.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, David BORRELLI, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco ZULLO
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22
(22) In order to ensure that the aims of this Regulation are achieved and obstacles to its application are prevented, in particular in order to avoid absconding and secondary movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation of those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are covered.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22
(22) In order to ensure that the aims of this Regulation are achieved and obstacles to its application are prevented, in particular in order to avoid absconding and secondary movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation of those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of some of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are covered.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22
(22) In order to ensure that the aims of this Regulation are achieved and obstacles to its application are prevented, in particular in order to avoid absconding and secondary movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation of those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant (such as repatriation) and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are covered.
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Petri SARVAMAA, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Mariya GABRIEL, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22
(22) In order to ensure that the aims of this Regulation are achieved and obstacles to its application are prevented, in particular in order to avoid absconding and secondary movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation of those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are covered.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) In order to increase applicants' understanding of the functioning of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) it is necessary to significantly improve the provision of information. Investing in the early provision of accessible information to applicants will greatly increase their possibilities to understand, accept and follow the procedures of this Regulation. In order to reduce the administrative requirements and make effective use of common resources the European Union Asylum Agency should develop suitable information material, in close cooperation with the national authorities. The Agency should make full use of modern information technologies when developing that material. In order to properly assist asylum seekers the Agency should also develop audio-visual information material that can be used as a complement to written information materials. The Agency should be responsible for maintaining a dedicated website with information on the functioning of the CEAS for applicants and potential applicants designed to counter the often incorrect information provided to them by smugglers. The information material developed by the Agency should be translated and made available in all of the major languages spoken by asylum seekers arriving in Europe.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) In order to increase applicants' understanding of the functioning of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) it is necessary to improve the provision of information significantly. Investing in the early provision of accessible information to applicants will greatly increase the likelihood that they will understand, accept and follow the procedures of this Regulation to a greater extent than to date. In order to reduce the administrative requirements and make effective use of common resources the Asylum Agency should develop suitable information material, and audio-visual information material that can be used as a complement to written information material in cooperation with the relevant national authorities,. The Asylum Agency should be responsible for maintaining a dedicated website with information on the functioning of the CEAS for applicants and potential applicants designed to counter the often incorrect information provided to them. The information material should be translated and made available in all of the major relevant languages spoken by asylum seekers arriving in Europe.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) In order to reduce the administrative requirements and make effective use of common resources the European Union Agency for Asylum should develop suitable information material on the CEAS, in close cooperation with the national authorities. The information material developed by the Agency should be translated and made available in languages which the asylum seekers understand or are reasonably supposed to understand. In order to avoid that information on the functioning of the CEAS are improperly used, they should be provided just to asylum seekers, once they have already reached the territory of the Union.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) Different categories of applicants have differing information needs and information will therefore have to be provided in different ways and be adapted to those needs. It is particularly important to ensure that minors have access to child-friendly information that is specific to their needs and situation. Providing accurate, high-quality information to both accompanied and unaccompanied minors in a child-friendly environment can play an essential part both in providing a good environment for the minor but also in order to identify cases of any form of exploitation or violence, including trafficking in human beings.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) To build an efficient Common European Asylum System, to save human lives by preventing dangerous journeys and crossings of the sea, to combat the problem of human traffickers and people smugglers, and to prevent the arrival in Europe of huge waves of economic migrants whose applications for international protection will be rejected, the European Union must evaluate the suitability of setting up “Hotspots” for examining applications for international protection in third countries that are considered safe.
Elly SCHLEIN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Caterina CHINNICI, Maria GRAPINI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Dietmar KÖSTER
(23) A personal interview with the applicant should be organised in order to facilitate the determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible . As soon as the application for international protection is lodged, the applicant should be informed in particular of the application of this Regulation, of the lack of choice as to which Member State will examine his or her asylum application; of his or her obligations under this Regulation and of the consequences of not complying with them and of the possibility of presenting all further information which is relevant for correctly determining the Member State responsible before a final decision is taken, including the presence of family members or relatives in the Member States, and the existence of meaningful links with a Member State. The applicant should also be informed of all his or her rights, including the right to an effective remedy and legal assistance. When the applicant is a minor, the interview has to be conducted in a child- friendly manner and with the presence of a guardian and, where applicable, the legal advisor or counsellor. The person conducting the interview shall be qualified and competent to take account of the personal and general circumstances surrounding the applicant.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, David BORRELLI, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO
Proposal for a regulation Recital 23
(23) A personal interview with the applicant should be organised in order to facilitate the determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible. As soon as the application for international protection is lodged, the applicant should be informed in particular of the application of this Regulation, of the lack of choice as to which Member State will examine his or her asylum application; of his or her obligations under this Regulation and of the consequences of not complying with themrights under this Regulation, in particular the opportunity to provide information on any family members or persons with other family connections in other Member States, and of his or her obligations under this Regulation and of the consequences of not complying with them. The information given to the applicant must be clear and concise and in a language that he or she understands.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 23
(23) A personal interview with the applicant should be organised in order to facilitate the determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible. As soon as the application for international protection is lodged, the applicant should be informed in particular of the application of this Regulation, of the lack of choice as to which Member State will examinemay be competent of his or her asylum application; of his or her rights and obligations under this Regulation and of the consequences of not complying with them. The applicant should be fully informed about his or her right to legal assistance and an effective remedy. The information to the applicant should be provided in a language that he or she understands, in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 23
(23) A personal interview with the applicant should be organised in order to facilitate the determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible. As soon as the application for international protection is lodgregistered, the applicant should be informed in particular of the application of this Regulation, of the lack of choice as toprocedure determining which Member State will examine his or her asylum application;, including the possibility to be transferred to a Member State where family members are present and with which the applicant has meaningful links, including language skills, education, professional skills or cultural ties and of his or her obligations under this Regulation and of theany consequences of not complying with them.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 23
(23) A personal interview with the applicant should be organised in order to facilitate the determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible. As soon as the application for international protection is lodged, the applicant should be informed in particular of the application of this Regulation, of the lack of choice as to which Member State will examine his or her asylum application; of his or her obligations under this Regulation and of the consequences of not complying with them
Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 a (new)
(23a) Both Europol and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency clearly stated that migratory routes are misused by criminal networks for their purposes such as human trafficking, terrorism or organised crime1a . It is therefore of utmost importance to increase the fight against human traffickers, organised crime networks and terrorism, which will simultaneously ensure the individual safety of persons in clear need of international protection and the public security of the Member States. Qualified staff which conducts the personal interview shall therefore be obliged to inform the competent staff of national authorities, Europol and the European Border and Coast Guard as soon as possible when there are reasonable grounds that an interviewed person is at risk of becoming a victim of or is involved in the above mentioned activities. _________________ 1a https://www.europol.europa.eu/publicatio ns-documents/migrant-smuggling-in-eu http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publicatio ns/Risk_Analysis/Annula_Risk_Analysis_ 2016.pdf
Proposal for a regulation Recital 24
(24) In order to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the persons concerned, legal safeguards and the right to an effective remedy in respect of decisions regarding transfers to the Member State responsible should be established, in accordance, in particular, with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. An effective remedy should also be provided in situations when no transfer decision is taken but the applicant claims that another Member State is responsible on the basis that he has a family member or, for unaccompanied minors, a relative in another Member State. In order to ensure that international law is respected, an effective remedy against such decisions should cover both the examination of the application of this Regulation and of the legal and factual situation in the Member State to which the applicant is transferred. The scope of the effective remedy should be limited to an assessment of whether applicants' fundamental rights to respect of family life, the rights of the child, or the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment risk to be infringed upon.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 24
(24) In order to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the persons concerned, legal safeguards and the right to an effective remedy in respect of decisions regarding transfers to the Member State responsible should be established, in accordance, in particular, with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. An effective remedy should also be provided in situations when no transfer decision is taken but the applicant claims that another Member State is responsible on the basis that he has a family member or, for unaccompanied minors, a relative in another Member State. In order to ensure that international law is respected, an effective remedy against such decisions should cover both the examination of the application of this Regulation and of the legal and factual situation in the Member State to which the applicant is transferred. The scope of the effective remedy should be limited to an assessment of whether applicants' fundamental rights to respect of family life, the rights of the child, or the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment risk to be infringed upon.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 24
(24) In order to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the persons concerned, legal safeguards and the right to an effective remedy in respect of decisions regarding transfers to the Member State responsible should be established, in accordance, in particular, with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. An effective remedy should also be provided in situations when no transfer decision is taken but the applicant claims that another Member State is responsible on the basis that he has a family member or, for unaccompanied minors, a relative in another Member State. In order to ensure that international law is respected, an effective remedy against such decisions should cover both the examination of the application of this Regulation and of the legal and factual situation in the Member State to which the applicant is transferred. The scope of the effective remedy should be limited to an assessment of whether applicants' fundamental rights to respect of family life, the rights of the child, or the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment risk to be infringed upon.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, David BORRELLI, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Recital 25
(25) The Member State which is determined as responsible under this Regulation should remain responsible for examination of each and every application of that applicant, including any subsequent application, in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States. Provisions in Regulation (EU) 604/2013 which had provided for the cessation of responsibility in certain circumstances, including when deadlines for the carrying out of transfers had elapsed for a certain period of time, had created an incentive for absconding, and should therefore be removed.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 25
(25) The Member State which is determined as responsible under this Regulation should remain responsible for examination of each and every application of that applicant, including any subsequent application, in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States. Provisions in Regulation (EU) 604/2013 which had provided for the cessation of responsibility in certain circumstances, including when deadlines for the carrying out of transfers had elapsed for a certain period of time, had created an incentive for absconding, and should therefore be removed.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 25
(25) The Member State which is determined as responsible under this Regulation should remain responsible for examination of each and every application of that applicant, including any subsequent application, in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States. Provisions in Regulation (EU) 604/2013 which had provided for the cessation of responsibility in certain circumstances, including when deadlines for the carrying out of transfers had elapsed for a certain period of time, had created an incentive for absconding, and should therefore be removed.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 25
(25) The Member State which is determined as responsible under this Regulation should remain responsible for examination of each and every application of that applicant, including any subsequent application, in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States. Provisions in Regulation (EU) 604/2013 which had provided for the cessation of responsibility in certain circumstances, including when deadlines for the carrying out of transfers had elapsed for a certain period of time, had created an incentive for absconding, and should therefore be removed.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 25
(25) The Member State which is determined as responsible under this Regulation should remain responsible for examination of each and every application of that applicant, including any subsequent application, in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States. Provisions in Regulation (EU) 604/2013 which had provided for the cessation of responsibility in certain circumstances, including when deadlines for the carrying out of transfers had elapsed for a certain period of time, had created an incentive for absconding, and should therefore be removed.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 25
(25) The Member State which is determined as responsible under this Regulation should remain responsible for examination of each and every application of that applicant, including any subsequent application, within a 24 month period, in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whetherand provided that the applicant has not left or was removed from the territories of the Member States. Provisions in Regulation (EU) 604/2013 which had provided for the cessation of responsibility in certain circumstances, including when deadlines for the carrying out of transfers had elapsed for a certain period of time, had created an incentive for absconding, and should therefore be removedto the country of origin or has not been removed from the territory of the Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 26
(26) In order to ensure the speedy determination of responsibility and allocation of applicants for international protection between Member States, the deadlines for making and replying to requests to take charge, for making take back notifications, and for carrying out transfers, as well as for making and deciding on appeals, should be streamlined and shortened to the greatest extent possible.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 27
(27) The detention of applicants should be applied in accordance with the underlying principle that a person should not be held in detention for the sole reason that he or she is seeking international protection. Detention should be for as short a period as possible and subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality. In particular, the detention of applicants must be in accordance with Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. The procedures provided for under this Regulation in respect of a detained person should be applied as a matter of priority, within the shortest possible deadlines. As regards the general guarantees governing detention, as well as detention conditions, where appropriate, Member States should apply the provisions of Directive 2013/33/EU also to persons detainedA person should not be held in detention on the basis of this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 27
(27) The detention of applicants should be applied in accordance with the underlying principle that a person should not be held in detention for the sole reason that he or she is seeking international protection. Detention should be for as short a period as possible and subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality. In particular, the detention of applicants must be in accordance with Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. The procedures provided for under this Regulation in respect of a detained person should be applied as a matter of priority, within the shortest possible deadlineis essential to maintaining security in the member states and preventing secondary movements. As regards the general guarantees governing detention, as well as detention conditions, where appropriate, Member States should apply the provisions of Directive 2013/33/EU also to persons detained on the basis of this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 27
(27) The detention of applicants should be applied in accordance with the underlying principle that a person should not be held in detention for the sole reason that hewho applies for the right of asylum and has illegally entered the territory of a Member State may be held in detention until a decision is reached with regard to his or she is seekingr request for international protection. Detention should be for as short a period as possible and subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality. In particular, the detention of applicants must be in accordance with Article 31 of the Geneva Conventionhonour their fundamental rights. The procedures provided for under this Regulation in respect of a detained person should be applied as a matter of priority, within the shortest possible deadlines. As regards the general guarantees governing detention, as well as detention conditions, where appropriate, Member States should apply the provisions of Directive 2013/33/EU also to persons detained on the basis of this Regulation.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Maria GRAPINI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Dietmar KÖSTER, Birgit SIPPEL
Proposal for a regulation Recital 27
(27) The detention of applicants should be applied in accordance with the underlying principle that a person should not be held in detention for the sole reason that he or she is seeking international protection. Detention should be limited to exceptional cases and for as short a period as possible and subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality. Minors shall never be detained. In particular, the detention of applicants must be in accordance with Article 31 of the Geneva Convention and which shall fully respect the person's fundamental rights. The procedures provided for under this Regulation in respect of a detained person should be applied as a matter of priority, within the shortest possible deadlines. As regards the general guarantees governing detention, as well as detention conditions, where appropriate, Member States should apply the provisions of Directive 2013/33/EU also to persons detained on the basis of this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 28
(28) Deficiencies in, or the collapse of, asylum systems, often aggravated or contributed to by particular pressures on them, can jeopardise the smooth functioning of the system put in place under this Regulation, which could lead to a risk of a violation of the rights of applicants as set out in the Union asylum acquis and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, other international human rights and refugee rights.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 29
(29) Proper registration of all asylum applications in the EU under a unique application number should help detect multiple applications and prevent irregular secondary movements and asylum shopping. An automated system should be established for the purpose of facilitating the application of this Regulation. It should enable registration of asylum applications lodged in the EU, effective monitoring of the share of applications of each Member State and a correct application of the corrective allocation mechanism.deleted
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Recital 29
(29) Proper registration of all asylum applications in the EU under a unique application number should help detect multiple applications and prevent irregular secondary movements and asylum shopping. An automated system should be established for the purpose of facilitating the application of this Regulation. It should enable registration of asylum applications lodged in the EU, effective monitoring of the share of applications of each Member State and a correct application of the corrective allocation mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 29
(29) Proper registration of all asylum applications in the EU under a unique application number should help detect multiple applications and prevent irregular secondary movements and asylum shopping. An automated system should be established for the purpose of facilitating the application of this Regulation. It should enable registration of asylum applications lodged in the EU, effective monitoring of the share of applications of each Member State and a correct application of the corrective allocation mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 29
(29) Proper registration of all asylum applications in the EU under a unique application number should help detect multiple applications and prevent irregular secondary movements and asylum shopping. An automated system should be established for the purpose of facilitating the application of this Regulation. It should enable registration of asylum applications lodged in the EU, effective monitoring of the share of applications of each Member State and a correct application of the corrective allocation mechanism. The national competent authorities of the Member State should be entitled to consult the information linked to the unique application number for security reasons.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 29
(29) Proper registration of all asylum applications in the EU under a unique application number should help detect multiple applications and prevent irregular secondary movements and asylum shopping. An automated system should be established for the purpose of facilitating the application of this Regulation. It should enable registration of asylum applications lodged in the EU, effective monitoring of the share of applications of each Member State and a correct application of the corrective allocation mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 29
(29) Proper registration of all asylum applications in the EU under a unique application number should help detect multiple applications and prevent irregular secondary movements and asylum shoppingfacilitate implementation of this Regulation. An automated system should be established for the purpose of facilitating the application of this Regulation. It should enable registration of asylum applications lodged in the EU, effective monitoring of the share of applications of each Member State and a correct application of the corrective allocation mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31
(31) In accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty, Union acts should, whenever necessary, contain appropriate measures to give effect to the principle of solidarity. A corrective allocation mechanism should be established in order to ensure a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31
(31) In accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty, Union acts should, whenever necessary, contain appropriate measures to give effect to the principle of solidarity. A corrective allocation mechanism should be established in order to ensure a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Petri SARVAMAA, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31
(31) In accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty, Union acts should, whenever necessary, contain appropriate measures to give effect to the principle of solidarity. A corrective allocation mechanism should be established in order to ensure a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31
(31) In accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty, Union acts shouldmust, whenever necessary, contain appropriate measures to give effect to the principle of solidarity. A corrective allocation mechanism shouldmust be established in order to ensurethrough which the guaranteeing and upholding of a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulationis effective and efficient.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31
(31) In accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty, Union acts should, whenever necessary, contain appropriate measures to give effect to the principle of solidarity. An allocation mechanism based on genuine links complemented by a corrective allocation mechanism should be established in order to ensure a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.
Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, József NAGY, Artis PABRIKS, Kinga GÁL, Pál CSÁKY, Pavel POC, Miroslav POCHE, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Jan KELLER, Monika SMOLKOVÁ, Andrea BOCSKOR, Vladimír MAŇKA
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31
(31) In accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty, Union acts should, whenever necessary, contain appropriate measures to give effect to the principle of solidarity. A voluntary corrective allocation mechanism should be established in order to ensure a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31
(31) In accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty, Union acts should, whenever necessary, contain appropriate measures to give effect to the principle of solidarity. A voluntary corrective allocation mechanism should be established in order to ensure a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31 a (new)
(31a) Member States should ensure that procedures are efficient and allow applicants for international protection to be promptly relocated to other Member States. Applicants in vulnerable situations should have their applications and transfer prioritised.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.deleted
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Petri SARVAMAA, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A reference key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The reference key should be corrected by reducing the share for the following year by 20% of the difference between the share based on GDP and population and the average number of irregular arrivals recorded by the Member State over the last three years, for countries which in the last three years have received an average share of irregular arrivals higher than the determined based on size of population and the economy of the Member States. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 1500% of the figure identified in the reference key. The corrective allocation should cease to apply when the number of applicants for which a Member State is responsible drops below 75% of the figure identified in the reference key. Member States located at external land or sea borders on the Western Mediterranean, Central Mediterranean and Eastern Mediterranean routes should be exempted from obligations of taking responsibility for allocated applications under the corrective mechanism from any other Member State. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A reference key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States, taking also into account the first-entry position of the frontline Member States, should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 15085% of the figure identified in the reference key. The corrective allocation should apply until the number of applicants registered drops below 65% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A reference key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 15080% of the figure identified in the reference key. The corrective allocation should cease to apply when the number of applicants for which a Member State is responsible drops below 75% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a thresholdmechanism, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which asolidarity. The application of the corrective mechanism should be triggered where the Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figurcould not be identified in the reference keytermined under Chapter III of this Regulation. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States, on their level of unemployment, on their expenditure linked to migration and on the number of beneficiaries of international protection who are in their territory should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 1500% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Tiziana BEGHIN, David BORRELLI, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of, on the economy of the Member States, including their growth and employment rates, should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressuremost exposed to migration flows. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the reference keyand in a way that is binding on all the Member States. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 1580% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 15075% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER, Birgit SIPPEL
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism, in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for whichorder to implement the principles of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility on asylum among Member States enshrined in Article 80 TFEU. The application of the allocation mechanism should be permanent and automatic, whenever a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figurcould not be identified in the reference keytermined according to the criteria set out in Chapter III and IV of this Regulation. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for which the Member State is responsible, for the purposes of this calculation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added todeducted from the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculationwhich a Member State is responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32 a (new)
(32a) In order to ensure that Member States that have not in recent years been among the main destination countries for applicants for international protection have sufficient time to build up their reception capacity, the corrective allocation mechanism should enable a gradual transition from the current situation to a situation with a more fair distribution of responsibilities under the corrective allocation mechanism. The transitional system should create a baseline key based on the average relative numbers of historically lodged applications for international protection in Member States and then transition from this "status quo" model towards a fair distribution by calculating the reference number for each Member State during the transitional period on the basis of a combination between the baseline key and the reference key referred to in Article 35.
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Petri SARVAMAA, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33
(33) When the allocation mechanism applies, the applicants who lodged their applications in the benefitting Member State should be allocated to Member States which are below their share of applications on the basis of the reference key as applied to those Member States. Appropriate rules should be provided for in cases where an applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to national security or public order, especially rules as regards the exchange of information between competent asylum authorities of Member States. After the transfer, the Member State of allocation should determine the Member State responsible, and should become responsible for examining the application, unless the overriding responsible criteria, related in particular to the presence of family members, determine that a different Member State should be responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33
(33) When the allocation mechanism applies, the applicants who lodged their applications in the benefitting Member State should be allocated to Member States which are below their share of applications on the basis of the reference key as applied to those Member States. Appropriate rules should be provided for in cases where an applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to national security or public order, especially rules as regards the exchange of information between competent asylum authorities of Member States. After the transfer, the Member State of allocation should determine the Member State responsible, and should become responsible for examining the application, unless the overriding responsible criteria, related in particular to the presence of family members, determine that a different Member State should be responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33
(33) When the allocationcorrective mechanism applies, the applicants who lodged their applications in the benefitting Member State should be allocated togiven the choice between the different Member States which are below their share of applications on the basis of the reference key as applied to those Member States. Appropriate rules should be provided for in cases where an applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to national security or public order, especially rules as regards the exchange of information between competent asylum authorities of Member States. After the transfer, the Member State of allocation should determine the Member State responsible, and should become responsible for examining the application, unless the overriding responsible criteria, related in particular to the presence of family members, listed under Chapter III determine that a different Member State should behave been responsible.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, David BORRELLI
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33
(33) WhenIn applying the allocation mechanism applies, the applicants who lodged their applications in the benefitting Member State should be allocated to Member States which are below their share of applications on the basis of the reference key as applied to those Member States. Appropriate rules should be provided for in cases where an applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to national security or public order, especially rules as regards the exchange of information between competent asylum authorities of Member States. After the transfer, the Member State of allocation should determine the Member State responsible, and should become responsible for examining the application, unless the overriding responsible criteria, related in particular to the presence of family members, determine that a different Member State should be responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33
(33) When the allocation mechanism applies, the applicants who lodged their applications in the benefitting Member State should be allocated to Member States which are below their share of applications on the basis of the reference key as applied to those Member States. Appropriate rules should be provided for in cases where an applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to national security or public order, especially rules as regards the exchange of information between competent asylum authorities of Member States. After the transfer, the Member State of allocation should determine the Member State responsible, and should become responsible for examining the application, unless the overriding responsible criteria, related in particular to the presence of family members or meaningful links with a Member State, including language skills, education, professional skills or cultural ties, determine that a different Member State should be responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33
(33) When the allocation mechanism applies, the applicants who lodged their applications in the benefitting Member State should be allocated to Member States which are below their sharepledged number of applications on the basis of, based on the guidelines established by the reference key as applied to those Member States. Appropriate rules should be provided for in cases where an applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to national security or public order, especially rules as regards the exchange of information between competent asylum authorities of Member States. After the transfer, the Member State of allocation should determine the Member State responsible, and should become responsible for examining the application, unless the overriding responsible criteria, related in particular to the presence of family members, determine that a different Member State should be responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33
(33) When the allocation mechanism applies, the applicants who lodged their applications in the benefittdetermining Member State should be allocated to Member States which are below their share of applications on the basis of the reference key as applied to those Member States. Appropriate rules should be provided for in cases where an applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to national security or public order, especially rules as regards the exchange of information between competent asylum authorities of Member States. After the transfer, the Member State of allocation should deterexamine the Member State responsible, andapplication, unless new elements demonstrates that another Member State should become responsible for examining the application, unless the overriding responsible criteria, relateaccording to the criteria set out in Chapter III and IV of this Regulation, and in particular those related to the presence of family members, determine that a different Member State should be responsible.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Dietmar KÖSTER, Birgit SIPPEL, Miriam DALLI
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33 a (new)
(33a) Member State should ensure that procedures are efficient and allow applicants for international protection to be promptly relocated to other Member States. With a view to avoid costly and time-consuming secondary transfers and in order to provide an efficient access to family unity for applicants whilst not unduly overburdening frontline Member States a light family reunification procedure should be envisaged which would allow for the transfer of applicants that are likely to meet the relevant criteria to allow them to be reunited with family members in a particular Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33 a (new)
(33a) It would be an asset to ensure that applicants who wish to be transferred together can register and be transferred under the corrective allocation mechanism as a group to one Member State. In order to allow for the smooth and practical application the relocation system should be based on transfer lists of 15 applicants per list.
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Petri SARVAMAA, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Recital 34
(34) Under the allocation mechanism, the costs of transfer of an applicant to the Member State of allocation should be reimbursed from the EU budget.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 34
(34) Under the allocation mechanism, tThe costs of transfer of an applicant to thfrom one Member State of allocationto another should be reimbursed from the EU budget.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 34
(34) Under the allocation mechanism, tThe costs of transfer of an applicant to another Member State of allocation should be reimbursed from the EU budget.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve-month period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250 000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during amay, at the end of each twelve -months- period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter thedecide either it will take part in the corrective allocation mechanism, either it will temporarily opt for a solidarity financial contribution. If a Member State opts for the second option, it has to pay, into a fund (the "Dublin Reserve Fund") to be established, per each applicants that who would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated toit, the first and the second years EUR 50 000, the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanismird and the fourth years EUR 75 000, the fifth and the following years EUR 100 000. The funding under this 'Dublin reserve' is intended to cover the granting of a lump sum per asylum seeker, distributed proportionally between the Member States that participate in the corrective allocation mechanism. If a Member State fails to pay, the Commission shall withhold the same amount from the payments due to that Member State from other Union funds.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-for an indefinite period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanismanother Member State.
Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, József NAGY, Artis PABRIKS, Pál CSÁKY, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pavel POC, Jan KELLER, Monika SMOLKOVÁ, Vladimír MAŇKA, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Miroslav POCHE
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) AIn cases where there is an immediate threat to national security, a Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidaritysuch opt- outs from the corrective allocation mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. In case of non-payment of solidarity contributions, as a measure of last resort, the Commission shall deduct the amount due from European funds to which the Member State in question is entitled. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 36
(36) In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/200322 , transfers to the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection may be carried out on a voluntary basis, by supervised departure or under escort. Member States should promote voluntary transfers by providing adequate information to the applicant and should ensure that supervised or escorted transfers are undertaken in a humane manner, in full compliance with fundamental rights and respect for human dignity, as well as the best interests of the child and taking utmost account of developments in the relevant case law, in particular as regards transfers on humanitarian grounds. _________________ 22deleted OJ L 222, 5.9.2003, p. 3.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 36
(36) In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/200322 , transfers to the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection may be carried out on a voluntary basis, by supervised departure or under escort. Member States should promote voluntary transfers by providing adequate information to the applicant and should ensure that supervised or escorted transfers are undertaken in a humane manner, in full compliance with fundamental rights and respect for human dignity, as well as the best interests of the child and taking utmost account of developments in the relevant case law, in particular as regards transfers on humanitarian grounds. The European Union Agency for Asylum should play a key role in guaranteeing that transfers are duly carried out, especially when they are on a voluntary basis. _________________ 22 OJ L 222, 5.9.2003, p. 3.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 37
(37) The progressive creation of an area without internal frontiers in which free movement of persons is guaranteed in accordance with the TFEU and the establishment of Union policies regarding the conditions of entry and stay of third- country nationals, including common efforts towards the management of external borders, makes it necessary to strike a balance between responsibility criteria in a spirit of solidarity.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 37
(37) The progressive creation of an area without internal frontiers in which free movement of persons is guaranteed in accordance with the TFEU and the establishment of Union policies regarding the conditions of entry and stay of third- country nationals, including common efforts towards the management of external borders, makes it necessary to strike a balance between responsibility criteria in a spirit of solidaritybut without adequate and serious checks at external borders has caused the enormous inconveniences which we are currently living with in Europe.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 38
(38) The [General Data Protection Regulation (EU) .../2016] applies to the processing of personal data by the Member States under this Regulation from the date set out in that Regulation; until this date Directive 95/46/EC applies. Member States should implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with that Regulation and the provisions specifying its requirements in this Regulation. In particular those measures should ensure the security of personal data processed under this Regulation and in particular to prevent unlawful or unauthorised access or disclosure, alteration or loss of personal data processed. In particular, data subjects should be notified without undue delay when a security incident is likely to result in a high risk to their rights and freedoms. The competent supervisory authority or authorities of each Member State should monitor the lawfulness of the processing of personal data by the authorities concerned, including of the transmission to and from the automated system and to the authorities competent for carrying out security checks.
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Recital 38
(38) The [General Data Protection Regulation (EU) .../2016] applies to the processing of personal data by the Member States under this Regulation from the date set out in that Regulation; until this date Directive 95/46/EC applies. Member States should implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with that Regulation and the provisions specifying its requirements in this Regulation. In particular those measures should ensure the security of personal data processed under this Regulation and in particular to prevent unlawful or unauthorised access or disclosure, alteration or loss of personal data processed. The competent supervisory authority or authorities of each Member State should monitor the lawfulness of the processing of personal data by the authorities concerned, including of the transmission to and from the automated system and to the authorities competent for carrying out security checks.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 38 a (new)
(38a) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data applies to the processing of personal data by the European Union Agency for Asylum.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 40
(40) The application of this Regulation can be facilitated, and its effectiveness increased, by the support of the European Agency for Asylum as well as bilateral arrangements between Member States for improving communication between competent departments, reducing time limits for procedures or simplifying the processing of requests to take charge or take back, or establishing procedures for the performance of transfers.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 41
(41) Continuity between the system for determining the Member State responsible established by Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 and the system established by this Regulation should be ensured. Similarly, consistency should be ensured between this Regulation and Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council] .deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 42
(42) A network of competent Member State authorities should be set up and facilitated by the European Union Agency for Asylum to enhance practical cooperation and information sharing on all matters related to the application of this Regulation, including the development of practical tools and guidance. That network should promote the exchange of best practices concerning the examination of an asylum application by the competent authorities of Member States under this Regulation and initiate the training of the employees of those authorities.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 44 a (new)
(44a) The operation of the Entry/Exit System (EES), as established by Regulation (EU) ..../... of the European Parliament and of the Council1a , should facilitate the application of this Regulation. _________________ 1a Regulation (EU) ..../... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States of the European Union and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 and Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011.
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Alessandra MUSSOLINI
Proposal for a regulation Recital 47
(47) The examination procedure should be used for the adoption of a common leaflet on Dublin/Eurodac, as well as a specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors; of a standard form for the exchange of relevant information on unaccompanied minors; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information on minors and dependent personsthe modalities and periodicity for providing applicants with information on the status of the procedure; of rules on the qualifications of and training for guardians and the modalities for their engagement with other actors; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information on minors and dependent persons; of standard operating procedures for cross-border cooperation among Member States regarding the assessment of the best interests of the child, family tracing and the identification of family members, siblings, relatives or any other family relations of an unaccompanied minor and for assessing the capacity of a relative to take care of an unaccompanied minor; of uniform conditions on the preparation and submission of take charge requests and take back notifications ; of two lists of relevant elements of proof and circumstantial evidence, and the periodical revision thereof; of a laissez passer; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information regarding transfers; of a standard form for the exchange of data before a transfer; of a common health certificate; of rules concerning the modalities for the handover from guardian to guardian in the case of transfers; of uniform conditions and practical arrangements for the exchange of information on a person’'s health data before a transfer, and of secure electronic transmission channels for the transmission of requests..
Proposal for a regulation Recital 47
(47) The examination procedure should be used for the adoption of a common leaflet on Dublin/Eurodac, as well as a specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors; of a standard form for the exchange of relevant information on unaccompanied minors; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information on minors and dependent persons; of uniform conditions on the preparation and submission of take charge requests and take back notifications ; of two lists of relevant elements of proof and circumstantial evidence, and the periodical revision thereof; of a laissez passer; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information regarding transfers; of a standard form for the exchange of data before a transfer; of a common health certificate; of uniform conditions and practical arrangements for the exchange of information on a person’s health data before a transfer, and of secure electronic transmission channels for the transmission of requests.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 47
(47) The examination procedure should be used for the adoption of a common leaflet on Dublin/Eurodac, as well as a specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors; of a standard form for the exchange of relevant information on unaccompanied minors; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information on minors and dependent persons; of uniform conditions on the preparation and submission of take charge requests and take back notifications ; of two lists of relevant elements of proof and circumstantial evidence, and the periodical revision thereof; of a laissez passer; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information regarding transfers; of a standard form for the exchange of data before a transfer; of a common health certificate; of a common vulnerability certificate, including relevant information on the follow-up of cases with traumatic background; of uniform conditions and practical arrangements for the exchange of information on a person’s health data before a transfer, and of secure electronic transmission channels for the transmission of requests.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 48
(48) In order to provide for supplementary rules, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the identification of family members or, relatives or any other family relativeons of an unaccompanied minor; the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a relative to take care of an unaccompanied minor, including where family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor stay in more than one Member State; the elements for assessing a dependency link; the elements for assessing a private sponsorship; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a person to take care of a dependent person; the criteria for assessing the existence of meaningful links to a certain Member State, including language skills, education, professional skills or cultural ties; standard operating protocols for the determination of the best interests of a child and the elements to be taken into account in order to assess the inability to travel for a significant period of time. In exercising its powers to adopt delegated acts, the Commission shall not exceed the scope of the best interests of the child as provided for under Article 8 of this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. .
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE
Proposal for a regulation Recital 48
(48) In order to provide for supplementary rules, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the identification of family members orperiodicity and modalities for providing information to applicants on the status of the procedures under this Regulation concerning them, the identification of family members, relatives or any other family relativeons of an unaccompanied minor; the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a relative to take care of an unaccompanied minor, including where family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor stay in more than one Member State; the elements for assessing a dependency link; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a person to take care of a dependent person; and the elements to be taken into account in order to assess the inability to travel for a significant period of time. In exercising its powers to adopt delegated acts, the Commission shall not exceed the scope of the best interests of the child as provided for under Article 8 of this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. .
Proposal for a regulation Recital 48
(48) In order to provide for supplementary rules, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the periodicity and modalities for providing information to applicants on the progress in the procedures under this Regulation concerning them, the identification of family members or relatives or any other family relations of an unaccompanied minor; the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a relative to take care of an unaccompanied minor, including where family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor stay in more than one Member State; the elements for assessing a dependency link; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a person to take care of a dependent person; standard operating protocols for transnational cooperation regarding the best interests of the child assessment and best interests determination and the elements to be taken into account in order to assess the inability to travel for a significant period of time. In exercising its powers to adopt delegated acts, the Commission shall not exceed the scope of the best interests of the child as provided for under Article 8 of this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016 . In particular, tTo ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and Council should receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. .
Proposal for a regulation Recital 48 a (new)
(48a) In order to provide for supplementary rules, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the identification of family members or relatives of applicants as well as in respect of the definition of eligibility criteria for sponsors.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 49
(49) In the application of this Regulation, including the preparation of delegated acts, the Commission should consult experts from, among others, all relevant national authorities and NGOs.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 52
(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.deleted
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Petri SARVAMAA, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Recital 52
(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 52
(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 52
(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Recital 52
(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Reguladetermination of the Member State responsible per this Regulation and in particular verify a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 52
(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI
Proposal for a regulation Recital 52
(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocationmechanism effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Recital 52
(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should regularly review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation. The Commission closely involves the European Parliament with regard to aforementioned reviews.
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied only once, in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter III, IV and VII of this Regulation.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied only once, in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter.
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied only once, in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter.
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied only once, in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter.
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied only once, in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter.
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied only once, in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter.
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in this Chapter shall be determined on the basis of the situation obtaining when the applicant first lodgregistered his or her application for international protection with a Member State within the meaning of Article 27 [Proposal for a regulation establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU].
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in thisese Chapters shall be determined on the basis of the situation obtaining when the applicant first lodged his or her application for international protection with a Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point 1 (new)
(1) In view of the application of the criteria referred to in Articles 10 to 13 and 18, Member States shall take into consideration any available evidence regarding the presence, on the territory of a Member State, of family members, relatives or any other family relations of the applicant, on condition that such evidence is produced before another Member State accepts the request to take charge or take back the person concerned, pursuant to Articles 22 and 25 respectively, and that the previous applications for international protection of the applicant have not yet been the subject of a first decision regarding the substance.
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In view of the application of the criteria referred to in Articles 10a to 14a and 18, Member States shall take into consideration any available evidence regarding the presence, on the territory of a Member State, of family members, relatives or any other family relations of the applicant, on condition that such evidence is produced before another Member State accepts the request to take charge or take back the person concerned, pursuant to Articles 22 and 25 respectively, and that the previous applications for international protection of the applicant have not yet been the subject of a first decision regarding the substance.
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In view of the application of the criteria referred to in Articles 10 to 13a and 18, Member States shall take into consideration any available evidence regarding the presence, on the territory of a Member State, of family members, relatives or any other family relations of the applicant, on condition that such evidence is produced before another Member State accepts the request to take charge or take back the person concerned, pursuant to Articles 22 and 25 respectively, and that the previous applications for international protection of the applicant have not yet been the subject of a first decision regarding the substance.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10
1. Where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, only the criteria set out in this article shall apply, in the order in which they are set out in paragraphs 2 to 5. 2. The Member State responsible shall be that where a family member of the unaccompanied minor is legally present, provided that it is in the best interests of the minor. Where the applicant is a married minor whose spouse is not legally present on the territory of the Member States, the Member State responsible shall be the Member State where the father, mother or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, or sibling is legally present. 3. Where the applicant has a relative who is legally present in another Member State and where it is established, based on an individual examination, that the relative can take care of him or her, that Member State shall unite the minor with his or her relative and shall be the Member State responsible, provided that it is in the best interests of the minor. 4. Where family members or relatives as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, stay in more than one Member State, the Member State responsible shall be decided on the basis of what is in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor. 5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor. 6. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 57 concerning the identification of family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor; the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a relative to take care of the unaccompanied minor, including where family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor stay in more than one Member State. In exercising its powers to adopt delegated acts, the Commission shall not exceed the scope of the best interests of the child as provided for under Article 8(3). 7. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for the consultation and the exchange of information between Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).Article 10 deleted Minors
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State responsible shall be that where a family member of the unaccompanied minor is legally present, provided that it is in the best interests of the minor. Where the applicant is a married minor whose spouse is not legally present on the territory of the Member States, the Member State responsible shall be the Member State where the father, mother or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, or sibling is legally present.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State responsible shall be that where a family member or a sibling of the unaccompanied minor is legally present, provided that it is in the best interests of the minor. Where the applicant is a married minor whose spouse is not legally present on the territory of the Member States, the Member State responsible shall be the Member State where the father, mother or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, or sibling is legally present.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State responsible shall be that where a family member of the unaccompanied minor is legally present, provided that it isunless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor. Where the applicant is a married minor whose spouse is not legally present on the territory of the Member Statesinor, the Member State responsible shall be the Member State where the father, mother, grandparent or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, or sibling is legally present.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. Where family members, siblings or relatives as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, stay in more than one Member State, the Member State responsible shall be decided on the basis of what is in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodghas registered his or her application for international protection and is present, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minorchild. A multidisciplinary best interests assessment shall be carried out in accordance with Article 8 in the Member State where the minor is present and shall determine whether the Member State responsible in line with an assessment of the child's best interests is the Member State where the minor has made an application, the Member State where the minor is present or another Member State based on Article 14A NEW.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Marju LAURISTIN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her appliand if no other criteria set out in Chapter III and IV apply, including Articles 19 and 20, the Member State responsible shall be determined by the allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII, provided that the minor should be always granted the choice among the Member States of possible allocation faccor dinternational protection, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minorg to Article 36c. Any decision on the Member State responsible should be preceded by a multidisciplinary assessment of the best interests of the minor, including in case of allocation.
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Luigi MORGANO, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unlis present, unless it is not in the best interests of the minor on the basis of the multidisciplinary besst it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minornterests assessment conducted in accordance with Article 8. Prior to such a determination the applicant shall be allowed to avail himself or herself of the procedures referred to in Article 19.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, and if no Member State has accepted under Article 19 to examine the application becoming the Member State responsible, the Member State responsible shall be thate one where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or herminor is present after having lodged an application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protectionis staying, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member, a sibling or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minorchild.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Where a minor is accompanied by one parent, adult sibling or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, and one parent or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, is legally present in a Member State, the Member State responsible shall be that where the parent or other adult responsible for the minor is legally present, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Where a minor is accompanied by one parent, adult sibling or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of a Member State, and one parent or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or the practice of a Member State, is legally present in the territory of a Member State, the Member State responsible shall be that where the parent or other adult responsible for the minor is legally present, provided that this is in the best interests of the child.
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Barbara MATERA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Hilde VAUTMANS, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Julie WARD, Simona BONAFÈ, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Where a minor is accompanied by one parent, adult sibling or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, and one parent or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, is legally present in a Member State, the Member State responsible shall be that where the parent or other adult responsible for the minor is legally present, provided that this is in the best interests of the minor.
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 57 concerning the identification of family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor; the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a relative to take care of the unaccompanied minor, including where family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor stay in more than one Member State. In exercising its powers to adopt delegated acts, the Commission shall not exceed the scope of the best interests of the child as provided for under Article 8(3).
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 a (new)
Article 10 a Family members 1. If a family member of the applicant, irrespective of the fact that the family already existed in the country of origin, is a national of a Member State, or is a third country national authorized by a Member State to stay in its territory as an asylum seeker, or as holder of any residence permit issued under EU law or national law of that Member State for a period of one year or longer, such Member shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing. 2. Where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the determining Member State shall always conduct a previous assessment of the best interests of the minor. 3. Where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor and family members as referred to in paragraph 1 stay in more than one Member State, the Member State responsible shall be decided on the basis of what is in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor, after having heard his or her opinion. 4. The identification of family members and the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links are established according to the procedure described in Article 24.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Dietmar KÖSTER, Marju LAURISTIN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 a (new)
Article 10 a Family member in a Member State Where the applicant has a family member, regardless of whether the family was previously formed in the country of origin , who is a third country national with a long-term residence permit residing in a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.
Proposal for a regulation Article 11
Family members who are beneficiaries of Where the applicant has a family member, regardless of whether the family was previously formed in the country of origin, who has been allowed to reside as a beneficiary of international protection in a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.Article 11 deleted international protection
Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – title
Family members who are beneficiaries of international protection
Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – paragraph 1
Where the applicant has a family member, regardless of whether the family was previously formed in the country of origin, who has been allowed to reside as a beneficiary of international protectionis legally residing in a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.
Proposal for a regulation Article 11 a (new)
Article 11 a Relatives 1. If a relative of the applicant is a national of a Member State, or is a third country national authorized by a Member State to stay in its territory as an asylum seeker, or as holder of any residence permit issued under EU law or national law of that Member State for a period of one year or longer, such Member shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, subject to the following conditions: - the persons concerned must express their consent in writing; - it is established, based on an individual examination, that the relative can take care of the applicant until the final decision on his or her claim for international protection [under Article 4 (d) of proposal for a new Procedures Regulation, 2016/0224 (COD)].
Proposal for a regulation Article 12
Family members who are applicants for If the applicant has a family member in a Member State whose application for international protection in that Member State has not yet been the subject of a first decision regarding the substance, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.Article 12 deleted international protection
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Where several family members and/or minor unmarried siblings submit applications for international protection in the same Member State simultaneously, or on dates close enough for the procedures for determining the Member State responsible to be conducted together, and where the application of the criteria set out in this Regulation would lead to their being separated, the Member State responsible shall be determined on the basis of the following provisions:
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) responsibility for examining the applications for international protection of all the family members and/or minor unmarried siblings shall lie with the Member State which the criteria indicate is responsible for taking charge of the largest number of them;
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Dietmar KÖSTER, Marju LAURISTIN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a Family reunification procedure 1. The determining Member State shall be responsible for conducting a special family reunification procedure for the applicant in order to ensure swift family reunification and access to the asylum procedures for applicants where there are, prima facie, sufficient indications that they are likely to have the right to family reunification in accordance with Articles 10, 11, 12 or 13. 2. In establishing whether there are sufficient indications that the applicant has family in the Member State he or she claims the determining Member State shall ensure that the applicant has understood the applicable definition of family members and/or relatives and ensure that the applicant is certain that the alleged family members and/or relatives are not present in another Member State. The determining Member State shall also ensure that the applicant understands that he or she will not be allowed to stay in the Member State where he or she claims to have family members and/or relatives unless such a claim can be verified by that Member State. If the information provided by the applicant does not give manifest reasons to doubt the presence of family members and/or relatives in the Member State indicated by the applicant it shall be concluded that, prima facie, there are sufficient indications that the applicant has family members and/or relatives in that Member State in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 1. 3. If it is determined pursuant to paragraph 1 and 2 that an applicant likely has, prima facie, the right of family reunification in accordance with Articles 10, 11, 12 or 13 the determining Member State shall notify the Member State concerned thereof and the applicant shall be transferred to that Member State. 4. The Member State receiving an applicant in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 4 shall make the determination of whether the conditions for family reunifications in accordance with Article 10, 11, 12 or 13 are met. If it is determined that the conditions for family reunification are not met the receiving Member State shall ensure that the applicant is relocated to another Member State in accordance with the procedure in article 24a. 5. The authorities responsible of the Member State where the applicant claims to have family members and/or relatives present shall assist the authorities responsible of the determining Member State with answering any questions aimed at clarifying whether the alleged family links are correct. The absence of official documents issued by the State of origin cannot be the only reason for not declaring satisfied the requirements for family reunification, and other evidence should also be admitted, including the declarations from international organizations. 6. For the purposes of the procedures provided for in this Article, the Commission shall adopt an implementing act regarding the evidentiary requirements to prove relevant family links, including the type of proof or evidence required, including partial documentation issued by the State of origin or declarations from international organisations. A different understanding of such proof or evidence between the determining Member State and the Member State receiving the applicant shall not result in the applicant being subject to the procedure under Article 24a.
Proposal for a regulation Article 14
Issue of residence documents or visas 1. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid residence document or a residence document which has expired less than two years before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the document shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. 2. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the visa shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, unless the visa was issued on behalf of another Member State under a representation arrangement as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . In such a case, the represented Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. 3. Where the applicant is in possession of more than one valid residence document or visa issued by different Member States, the responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall be assumed by the Member States in the following order: (a) the Member State which issued the residence document conferring the right to the longest period of residency or, where the periods of validity are identical, the Member State which issued the residence document having the latest expiry date; (b) the Member State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date where the various visas are of the same type; (c) where visas are of different kinds, the Member State which issued the visa having the longest period of validity or, where the periods of validity are identical, the Member State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date. 4. The fact that the residence document or visa was issued on the basis of a false or assumed identity or on submission of forged, counterfeit or invalid documents shall not prevent responsibility being allocated to the Member State which issued it. However, the Member State issuing the residence document or visa shall not be responsible if it can establish that a fraud was committed after the document or visa had been issued. _________________ 25Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).Article 14 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid residence document or a residence document which has expired less than two years before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the document shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid residence document or a residence document which has expired less than two years before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the document shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid residence document or a residence document which has expired less than two years before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the document shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the visa shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, unless the visa was issued on behalf of another Member State under a representation arrangement as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . In such a case, the represented Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. _________________ 25 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a humanitarian visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the visa shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, unless the visa was issued on behalf of another Member State under a representation arrangement as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . In such a case, the represented Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. _________________ 25 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the visa shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, unless the visa was issued on behalf of another Member State under a representation arrangement as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . In such a case, the represented Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. _________________ 25 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the visa shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, unless the visa was issued on behalf of another Member State under a representation arrangement as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . In such a case, the represented Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. _________________ 25 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Where the applicant is in possession only of one or more residence documents which have expired less than two years previously or one or more visas which have expired less than six months previously and which enabled him or her actually to enter the territory of a Member State, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply for such time as the applicant has not left the territories of the Member States. Where the applicant is in possession of one or more residence documents which have expired more than two years previously or one or more visas which have expired more than six months previously and enabled him or her actually to enter the territory of a Member State and where he has not left the territories of the Member States, the Member State in which the application for international protection is lodged shall be responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 a (new)
Article 14 a Meaningful links with a Member State 1. An applicant shall be allocated to a Member State other than the one where he or she first has lodged his or her application for international protection, where the former State is determined according to one of the following situations: a) a sponsor expresses the intention and holds the capacity to take care of the applicant until the final decision on his or her claim for international protection [under Article 4 (d) of proposal for a new Procedures Regulation, 2016/0224 (COD)] and can cover the travel costs to the country of nationality in the case that the claim is not accepted with a final decision and a return decision is adopted; b) the Member State has released to the applicant a valid residence document, or the applicant held in the past a residence document for a stay not inferior to one year in that country for work, study or research purposes. This does not apply if the residence document was revoked or not renewed for reasons of public security or public order; c) the applicant holds academic or professional diplomas or qualifications released by the authorities of one Member State, or by a third State in the framework of programs of international cooperation in the field of education or training managed, promoted or financed by a Member State, including but not limited to bilateral agreements of mutual recognition of diplomas or qualifications. d) the applicant holds a satisfactory knowledge of one of the official languages of a Member State, to be ascertained through certificates or a linguistic test. 2. The assessment of the recurrence of the requisites spelled in paragraph 1 is conducted according to the procedure described in Article 24. 3. A delegated act adopted according to the procedure described in Article 57(2) shall determine: - the formalities and the eligibility requisites to be satisfied by a sponsor under paragraph 1(a), and the other necessary implementing measures; - the implementing measures for the situations under paragraph 1(b), 1(c), 1(d).
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 a (new)
Article 14 a Meaningful links with a Member State 1. Where the applicant has meaningful links with a Member State, including language skills, education, professional skills or cultural ties which would facilitate his or her integration, that Member State will be responsible for examining the application for international protection.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 15
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.Article 15 deleted Entry
Proposal for a regulation Article 15
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.Article 15 deleted Entry
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – title
Entry and/or stay
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible, on behalf of the European Union, for examining the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease 12 months after the date on which the irregular border crossing took place.
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come directly from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease 12 months after the date on which the irregular border crossing took place
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease 24 months after the date on which the irregular border crossing took place.
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus enteredentered the Union by land, sea or air, the Member State of the applicant's first application for international protection shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
2. When a Member State cannot or can no longer be held responsible in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4), that the applicant — who has entered the territories of the Member States irregularly or whose circumstances of entry cannot be established — has been living for a continuous period of at least five months in a Member State before lodging the application for international protection, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. If the applicant has been living for periods of time of at least five months in several Member States, the Member State where he or she has been living most recently shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
When a Member State cannot or can no longer be held responsible in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 22(3), that the applicant — who has entered the territories of the Member States irregularly or whose circumstances of entry cannot be established — has been living for a continuous period of at least five months in a Member State before lodging the application for international protection, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. If the applicant has been living for periods of time of at least five months in several Member States, the Member State where he or she has been living most recently shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
When a Member State cannot or can no longer be held responsible in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 22(3), that the applicant — who has entered the territories of the Member States irregularly or whose circumstances of entry cannot be established — has been living for a continuous period of at least five months in a Member State before lodging the application for international protection, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. If the applicant has been living for periods of time of at least five months in several Member States, the Member State where he or she has been living most recently shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence, that an applicant has crossed the border into the Member State where the application was lodged having come through another Member State, the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection shall be determined in accordance with the procedure in Article 24a.
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 a (new)
Article 15 a Fallback criterion 1. If the conditions laid down in Articles 10a to 14a are not met, the determining State shall consult the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) in order to identify the Member States with the lowest number of applicants in proportion to their share of the fair distribution. 2. Applicants shall choose the Member State responsible among the 5 Member States with the lowest number of applicants in proportion to their share of the fair distribution at the moment when the determining State consulted the automated system.
Proposal for a regulation Article 16
If a third-country national or a stateless person enters into the territory of a Member State in which the need for him or her to have a vArticle 16 deleted Visa is waived, that Member State shall be responsible for examining his or her application for international protection. entry
Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The principle set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply if the third-country national or the stateless person lodges his or her application for international protection in another Member State in which the need for him or her to have a visa for entry into the territory is also waived. In that case, that other Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Article 17
Application in an international transit Where the application for international protection is made in the international transit area of an airport of a Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application.rticle 17 deleted area of an airport
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Miriam DALLI, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Where the application for international protection is made in the international transit area of an airport of a Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person, that Member State shall be determining the Member State responsible for examining the application according to the criteria set out in Chapter III, IV and VII..
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Miriam DALLI, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 a (new)
Article 17 a Centralised allocation mechanism When it is not possible to determine a Member State responsible according to the previous criteria under Chapters III and Articles 18, 18a and 19 do not apply, the Member State responsible shall be determined with the allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Dietmar KÖSTER, Kati PIRI, Marju LAURISTIN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Where, on account of pregnancy, a new-born child, serious illness, severe disability or old age, an applicant is dependent on the assistance of his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States, or his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States is dependent on the assistance of the applicant, Member States shall normally keep or bring together the applicant with that child, sibling or parent, provided that family ties existed in the country of originbefore the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States, that the child, sibling or parent or the applicant is able to take care of the dependent person and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing. When the applicant is affected by a serious disease or inability and it is not possible to determine a Member State responsible according to the criteria set out in Chapters III and IV of this regulation, Member States shall normally keep the applicant on the territory of the Member State in which the applicant is present, if the person concerned expressed his desire in writing.
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Where, on account of pregnancy, a new-born child, serious illness, severe disability, severe trauma or old age, an applicant is dependent on the assistance of his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States, or his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States is dependent on the assistance of the applicant, Member States shall normally keep or bring together the applicant with that child, sibling or parent, provided that family ties existed in the country of origininsofar as the family ties already existed before the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States, that the child, sibling or parent or the applicant is able to take care of the dependent person and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt an implementing act laying down the rules and the procedural steps on how to establish the dependency link.
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Where, on account of pregnancy, a new-born child, serious illness, severe disability, severe trauma or old age, an applicant is dependent on the assistance of his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States, or his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States is dependent on the assistance of the applicant, Member States shall normally keep or bring together the applicant with that child, sibling or parent, provided that family ties existed in the country of origininsofar as the family ties already existed before the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States, that the child, sibling or parent or the applicant is able to take care of the dependent person and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 a (new)
Article 18 a Sponsorship 1. European citizen or third country national legally residing in a Member State for a period of at least one year, or an organisation, association or firm, that respect specific requirements set out in the delegated act referred to in paragraph 3, have the possibility to become the sponsor of an applicant for international protection who lodged an application in the EU. The individual or organisation sponsoring an applicant should provide for his or her transfer and his or her stay in the Member State where the sponsor resides, until the final decision on his or her application is adopted. 2. On the basis of a written request by the sponsor, with the acceptance of the applicant, the determining Member State shall notify it to the Member State where the sponsor resides. If the Member State accepts to take charge of the applicant, it shall become the Member State responsible, and the application should be counted within its reference number as defined in Article 35. 3. A delegated act adopted according to the procedure described in Article 57, paragraph 2, shall determine the formalities and the eligibility requirements to be satisfied by a sponsor and the other necessary implementing measures.
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 a (new)
Article 18 a Private Sponsorship 1. Where an applicant is sponsored by a person legally residing in one of the Member States, the Member State of residence of the sponsor will be the responsible Member State, provided that the sponsor is able to take care of the dependent person and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing. 2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 57 concerning the elements to be taken into account in order to determine the criteria for assessing the capacity of the sponsor concerned to take care of the dependent person. 3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information between Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation. The Member State which decides to examine an application for international protection pursuant to this paragraph shall become the Member State responsible and shall assume the obligations associated with that responsibility. Where applicable, it shall inform the Member State previously responsible, the Member State conducting a procedure for determining the Member State responsible or the Member State which has been requested to take charge of the applicant. The Member State which becomes responsible pursuant to this paragraph shall forthwith indicate it in Eurodac in accordance with Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] by adding the date when the decision to examine the application was taken.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation. By way of Derogation from Article 3(1) a Member State may, with the agreement of the Member States already determined responsible, examine the application for international protection lodged by a third- country national or stateless person based on a formal request, in writing, from the applicant.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Anders VISTISEN, Mariya GABRIEL, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on e.g. family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The Member State which decides to examine an application for international protection pursuant to this paragraph shall become the Member State responsible and shall assume the obligations associated with that responsibility. Where applicable, iIt shall inform the Member State previously responsible, the Member State conducting a procedure for determining the Member State responsible or the Member State which has been requested to take charge of the applicant.
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. It is at the discretion of the Member State to which the applicant was allocated and the Member State to which the applicant wishes to be allocated, to consider a request from an applicant and to apply paragraph 1.
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The Member State in which an application for international protection is madelodged and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible, or the Member State responsible, may, at any time before a Member State responsible has been determined , request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations , on humanitarian grounds based in particular on family or cultural considerations even where that other Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and 18. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing.
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The Member State in which an application for international protection is madelodged and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible, or the Member State responsible, may, at any time before a Member State responsible has been determined , request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations , on humanitarian grounds based in particular on family or cultural considerations even where that other Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and 18. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The Member State in which an application for international protection is made and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible may, at any time before a Member State responsible has been determined , or the Member State responsible, may, at any time before a decision regarding the substance is taken, request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations, on humanitarian grounds , even where that other Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and 18. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing.
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Applicants for international protection shall not be entitled to ask Member States to apply the sovereignty clause. Application of the sovereignty clause is the exclusive power of the Member States, which must unilaterally examine and decide on the factors instrumental in the application of that clause. It is the task of a Member State to verify the existence of any elements instrumental in determining the Member State responsible.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 a (new)
Article 19a Cessation of responsibilities 1. Where a Member State issues a residence document to the applicant, the obligations specified in Article 20(1) shall be transferred to that Member State. 2. The obligations specified in Article 20(1) shall cease where the Member State responsible can establish, when requested to take charge or take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c) or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member States for at least three months, unless the person concerned is in possession of a valid residence document issued by the Member State responsible. An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the first subparagraph shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible. 3. The obligations specified in Article 20 (1)(c) and (d) shall cease where the Member State responsible can establish, when requested to take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20 (1)(c) or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member States in compliance with a return decision or removal order issued following the withdrawal or rejection of the application. An application lodged after an effective removal has taken place shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, an applicant whose application is under examination and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, a third- country national or a stateless person who has withdrawn the application under examination and made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, a third- country national or a stateless person who has withdrawn the application under examination and made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, a third- country national or a stateless person whose application has been rejected and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, a third- country national or a stateless person whose application has been rejected and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, a third-country national or a stateless person whose application has been rejected at first instance and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document;.
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, a third-country national or a stateless person whose application has been rejected at first instance and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document;
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30 a beneficiary of international protection, who made an application in another Member State than the Member State responsible which granted that protection status or who is on the territory of another Member State than the Member State responsible which granted that protection without a residence document.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30 a beneficiary of international protection, who made an application in another Member State than the Member State responsible which granted that protection status or who is on the territory of another Member State than the Member State responsible which granted that protection without a residence document.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30if a beneficiary of international protection, who made makes an application in another Member State than the Member State responsible which granted that protection status or who is on the territory of another Member State than the Member State responsible which granted that protection without a residence document, the Member State where he or she made the application should recognize its status of beneficiary of international protection granted by the other Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(e a) A third country national or a stateless person whose application has been rejected, or who has withdrawn the application under examination, and has left or was removed from the territory of the responsible Member State as a result of a return decision or a removal order, who has made an application later in another Member State, shall be removed from the territories of the Member States without initializing a take back procedure under Art. 26 and Art. 30.
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 2
2. In a situation referred to in point (a) or (b) of paragraph 1, the Member State responsible shall examine or complete the examination of the application for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 3
3. In a situation referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, the Member State responsible shall examine or complete the examination of the application for international protection in an accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 31 paragraph 8 of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 3
3. In a situation referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, the Member State responsible shall examine or complete the examination of the application for international protection in an accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 31 paragraph 8 of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 4
4. In a situation referred to in point (c) of paragraph 1, the Member State responsible shall treat any further representations or a new application by the applicant as subsequent application in accordance with Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 4
4. In a situation referred to in point (c)the cases falling within the scope of paragraph 1,(c), when the Member State responsible shall treat any further representations or a new application by the applicanthad discontinued the examination of an application following its withdrawal by the applicant before a decision on the substance has been taken at first instance, that Member State shall ensure that the applicant is entitled to request that the examination of his or her application be completed or to lodge a new application for international protection, which shall not be treated as a subsequent application in accordance withas provided for in Directive 2013/32/EU. In such cases, Member States shall ensure that the examination of the application is completed.
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 5
5. In a situation referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1, the decision taken by the responsible authority of the Member State responsible to reject the application shall no longer be subject to a remedy within the framework of Chapter V of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Kati PIRI, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 5
5. In a situation referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1, twhe decision taken by the responsible authority of the Member State responsible to reject the application shall no longer be subject to a remedy within the framework of Chapter Vre the applicant has been rejected at first instance only, the Member State responsible shall ensure that the person concerned has or has had the opportunity to seek an effective remedy pursuant to Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU.
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 5
5. In a situation referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1, the decision taken by the responsible authority of the Member State responsible to reject the application shall no longer be subject to a remedy within the framework of Chapter V of Directive 2013/32/EU.
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1
The Member State responsible shall indicate in the electronic file referred to in Article 22(2) the fact that it is the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 a (new)
Article 20 a Cessation of responsibilities 1. Where a Member State issues a residence document to the applicant, the obligations specified in Article 20(1) shall be transferred to that Member State. 2. The obligations specified in Article 20(1) shall cease where the Member State responsible can establish, when requested to take charge or take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c) or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member States for at least three months, unless the person concerned is in possession of a valid residence document issued by the Member State responsible. An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the first subparagraph shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible. 3. The obligations specified in Article 20(1)(c) and (d) shall cease where the Member State responsible can establish, when requested to take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c) or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member States in compliance with a return decision or removal order issued following the withdrawal or rejection of the application. An application lodged after an effective removal has taken place shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 a (new)
Article 20 a Cessation of responsibilities The obligations set out in Article 20 shall cease if the Member State responsible can establish that the person concerned has left its territory voluntarily for more than three months or in compliance with a return decision or removal order issued following the withdrawal or rejection of the application. An application that is lodged after the applicant has been absent for such a period or has been effectively removed shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. The process of determining the Member State responsible shall start as soon as an application for international protection is first lodged with a Member State , provided that the Member State of first application is not already the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(4) or (5) .
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. The process of determining the Member State responsible shall start as soon as an application for international protection is first lodgregistered with a Member State , provided that the Member State of first application is not already the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(4) or (5) .
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 2
2. An application for international protection shall be deemed to have been lodged once a form submitted by the applicant or a report prepared by the authorities has reached the competent authorities of the Member State concerned. Where an application is not made in writing, the time elapsing between the statement of intention and the preparation of a report should be as short as possible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Where an application for international protection is lodgregistered with the competent authorities of a Member State by an applicant who is on the territory of another Member State, the determination of the Member State responsible shall be made by the Member State in whose territory the applicant is present. The latter Member State shall be informed without delay by the Member State which received the application and shall then, for the purposes of this Regulation, be regarded as the Member State with which the application for international protection was lodgregistered.
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 5
5. An applicant who is present in another Member State without a residence document or who there lodges an application for international protection after withdrawing his or her first application made in a different Member State during the process of determining the Member State responsible shall be taken back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, by the Member State with which that application for international protection was first lodged.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 5
5. An applicant who is present in another Member State without a residence document or who there lodges an application for international protection after withdrawing his or her first application made in a different Member State during the process of determining the Member State responsible shall be taken back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, by the Member State with which that application for international protection was first lodged, with a view to completing the process of determining the Member State responsible. That obligation shall cease where the Member State requested to complete the process of determining the Member State responsible can establish that the applicant has in the meantime left the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months or has obtained a residence document from another Member State. An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the second subparagraph shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 5
5. An applicant who is present in another Member State without a residence document or who there lodgeregisters an application for international protection after withdrawing his or her first application made in a different Member State during the process of determining the Member State responsible shall be taken back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, by the Member State with which that application for international protection was first lodgregistered.
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)
That obligation shall cease where the Member State responsible can establish that the applicant has in the meantime left the territory of the Member State for a period of three months or has obtained a residence document from another Member State. An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the first subparagraph shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 22
1. The Member State with which an application for international protection is lodged shall enter in the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) within the period referred to in Article 10 (1) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) 603/2013] that: (a) such application is lodged; (b) where applicable, links to the applications of family members or relatives travelling together; (c) the reference number referred to in Article 12 (i) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]. 2. Upon entry of the information pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44 shall register each application under a unique application number, create an electronic file for each application and communicate the unique application number to the Member State of application. 3. Member States shall provide the European Union Agency for Asylum with information on the number of third country nationals effectively resettled on a weekly basis. The Agency shall validate this information and enter the data in the automated system. 4. Where a hit in Eurodac indicates that the applicant has previously lodged an application for international protection before having left or having been removed from the territories of the Member States, the Member State with which the new application is lodged shall also indicate which Member State has been the Member State responsible for examining the previous application. 5. The Member State with which the application is lodged shall search the VIS pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 767/2008. Where a hit in the VIS indicates that the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application, the Member State shall indicate the visa application number and the Member State, the authority of which issued or extended the visa and whether the visa has been issued on behalf of another Member State.Article 22 deleted Registration
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Member State with which an application for international protection is lodged shall enter in the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) within the period referred to in Article 10 (1) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) 603/2013] that:
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) where applicable, links to the applications of family members or relatives travelling together;, relatives or groups of applicants requesting to be registered as travelling together; without prejudice to the right of individual examination of each application and with particular attention to avoid drifts especially for asylum seekers expressing intra-familial fears.
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. Upon entry of the information pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44 shall register each application under a unique application number, create an electronic file for each application and communicate the unique application number to the Member State of application. The personal data contained in the unique application number as well as the electronic file shall only be used for the purposes of this Regulation and of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013].
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. Upon entry of the information pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44 shall register each application under a unique application number, create an electronic file for each application and communicate the unique application number to the Member State of application.
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall provide the European Union Agency for Asylum with information on the number of third country nationals effectively resettled on a weekly basis. The Agency shall validate this information and enter the data in the automated system.
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 4
4. Where a hit in Eurodac indicates that the applicant has previously lodged an application for international protection before having left or having been removed from the territories of the Member States, the Member State with which the new application is lodged shall also indicate which Member State has been the Member State responsible for examining the previous application.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State with which the application is lodged shall search the VIS pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 767/2008. Where a hit in the VIS indicates that the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application, the Member State shall indicate the visa application number and the Member State, the authority of which issued or extended the visa and whether the visa has been issued on behalf of another Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State with which the application is lodged shall search the VIS pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 767/2008. Where a hit in the VIS indicates that the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application, the Member State shall indicate the visa application number and the Member State, the authority of which issued or extended the visa and whether the visa has been issued on behalf of another Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State with which the application is lodged shall search the VIS pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 767/2008. Where a hit in the VIS indicates that the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application, the Member State shall indicate the visa application number and the Member State, the authority of which issued or extended the visa and whether the visa has been issued on behalf of another Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. The Member State with which the application is lodged shall search the EES pursuant to Article 25b of Regulation (EU) ..../... [EES Regulation, 2016/0106(COD)] with a view to facilitating the application of this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 23
Information in the automated system 1. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate in real time: (a) the total number of applications lodged in the Union; (b) the actual number of applications lodged in each Member State; (c) the number of third country nationals resettled by each Member State; (d) the actual number of applications to be examined by each Member State as Member State responsible; (e) the share of each Member State pursuant to the reference key referred to in Article 35. 2. In the electronic file referred to in Article 22(2) only the following information shall be recorded: (a) the unique application number referred to in Article 22(2): (b) link to applications referred to in point b of Article 22 (1) and 22(4); (c) the reference number referred to in point d of Article 12(i) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]; (d) the existence of an alert following the security verification pursuant to Article 40; (e) the Member State responsible; (f) in case of the indication of a previous application for international protection by the same applicant pursuant to Article 22(4), the Member State who was responsible for that previous application; (g) in case of the indication of a visa issued to the applicant pursuant to Article 22(5), the Member State which issued or extended the visa or on behalf of which the visa has been issued and the visa application number; (h) where the allocation mechanism under Chapter VII applies, the information referred to in Article 36(4) and point (h) of Article 39. 3. Upon communication by the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 20(7) and Article 22(3) the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count that application and that third country national effectively resettled for the share of that Member State. 4. The electronic files shall be automatically erased after expiry of the period set out in Article 17(1) of Regulation [Proposal for Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013].Article 23 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – title
Information in the automated system
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate in real time:
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate in real time:
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) the total number of successful applications in the Union;
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
(a b) the actual number of successful applications lodged in each Member State;
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the number of third country nationals resettled by each Member Stadelete;d
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) the share of each Member State pursuant to the reference key referred to in Article 35.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) in case of the indication of a previous application for international protection by the same applicant pursuant to Article 22(4), the Member State who was responsible for that previous application;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point h
(h) where the allocation mechanism under Chapter VII applies, the information referred to in Article 36(4) and point (h) of Article 39.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 3
3. Upon communication by the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 20(7) and Article 22(3) the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count that application and that third country national effectively resettled for the share of that Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – title
Submitting a take charge or take back request
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where a Member State with which an application for international protection has been lodged considers that another Member State is responsible for examining the application, it shall , as quickly as possible and in any event within one month of the date on which the application was lodged within the meaning of Article 21(2), request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where a Member State with which an application for international protection has been lodged considers that another Member State is responsible for examining the application, it shall , as quickly as possible and in any event within onthree months of the date on which the application was lodged within the meaning of Article 21(2), request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant.
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where a Member State with which an application for international protection has been lodged considers that another Member State is responsible for examining the application, it shall , as quickly as possible and in any event within onthree months of the date on which the application was lodged within the meaning of Article 21(2), request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant.
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The Member State with which an application for international protection has been lodged shall conduct a procedure to ascertain the occurrence of prima facie indications to determine the Member State responsible in accordance with Article 10a, 11a, 12a or 14a.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Miriam DALLI, Kati PIRI
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
If none of the criteria set out in Chapter III and IV apply, the determining Member State should determine the Member State responsible with the allocation mechanism according to the procedure laid down in Chapter VII.
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, in the case of a Eurodac hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] or of a VIS hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 767/2008 , the request shall be sent within two weeks of receiving that hit .deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, in the case of a Eurodac hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] or of a VIS hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 767/2008 , the request shall be sent within two weeksone month of receiving that hit .
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Where the request to take charge of an applicant is not made within the periods laid down in the first and second subparagraphs, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the application was lodged.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Where the request to take charge of an applicant is not made within the periods laid down in the first and second subparagraphs, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the application was lodged.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Where the request to take charge of an applicant is not made within the periods laid down in the first and second subparagraphs, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in whichbe determined by the applillocation was lodgedmechanism under Chapter VII.
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
In the cases referred to in paragraph 1 , the request that charge be taken by another Member State shall be made using a standard form and including proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from the applicant’s statement, enabling the authorities of the requested Member State to check whether it is responsible on the basis of the criteria laid down in this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions on the preparation and submission of take charge requests. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In establishing whether there are sufficient indications that the applicant has the relevant connections in the Member State he or she claims the determining Member State shall ensure that the applicant has understood the applicable definition of family members, of relatives and of the other meaningful links as spelled out in Article 14a. The determining State shall also ensure that the applicant is certain that the alleged family members and/or relatives are not present in another Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. The determining Member State shall ensure that the applicant understands that he or she will not be allowed to stay in the Member State where he or she claims to have family members, relatives or other meaningful links under Article 14a, unless such a claim can be verified by that Member State. If the information provided by the applicant does not give manifest reasons to doubt the presence of family members, of relatives or of other meaningful links under Article 14a in the Member State indicated by the applicant it shall be concluded that, prima facie, there are sufficient indications that such Member State is the competent one.
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. If it is determined pursuant to paragraph 1 and 2 that a Member State is, prima facie, responsible in accordance with Article 10a, 11a, 12a or 14a, the determining Member State shall notify the Member State responsible thereof and the applicant shall be transferred to that Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 d (new)
2 d. The Member State receiving an applicant in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 3 shall make the determination of whether the conditions for establishing its responsibility in accordance with Article 10a, 11a, 12a or 14a are met. If it is determined that such conditions reunification are not met the receiving Member State shall ensure that the applicant is relocated to another Member State in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24a.
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 e (new)
2 e. The authorities responsible of the Member State where the applicant claims to have family members, relatives or other meaningful links, shall assist the competent authorities of the determining Member State in confirming the links to the Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 f (new)
2 f. A delegated act adopted under Article 57 shall establish a list of prima facie indications on which the presumption according to Article 24(2d) shall be based. In doing so, the delegated act shall make it clear that the absence of official documents released by the State of origin cannot be per se the sole reason for declaring not satisfied a certain requirement and that other evidence should be admitted, including statements coming from international organizations.
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 a (new)
Article 24 a Submitting a take charge notification 1. Where an applicant is to be transferred to another Member State pursuant to Article 15(1a) or Article 36b (4) the Member State of allocation shall be determined randomly by the automated system referred to in Article 44 amongst the Member States not currently benefitting from the corrective allocation mechanism referred to in Article 34. 2. Once the Member State of allocation has been determined pursuant to paragraph 1, information to that effect shall be automatically entered into Eurodac and the Member State of allocation shall be informed by way of an automatic notification. 3. The Member State where the applicant is present shall inform the applicant of the determination pursuant to paragraph 2 and, in cooperation with the European Union Agency for Asylum, of the modalities for the transfer. 4.The Member State where the applicant is present shall ensure the swift transfer of the applicant to the Member State responsible with the assistance of the European Union Agency for Asylum t. 5. The obligations set out in Articles 39, 40, 41 and 42 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 a (new)
Article 24 a Submitting a take charge notification 1. Where an applicant is to be transferred to another Member State pursuant to Article 15 (1a) or Article 13a the Member State of allocation shall be determined randomly by the automated system referred to in Article 44 amongst the Member States according to Article 36c. 2. Once the Member State of allocation has been determined pursuant to paragraph 1, information to that effect shall be automatically entered into Eurodac and the Member State of allocation shall be informed by way of an automatic notification. 3. The Member State where the applicant is present shall inform the applicant of the determination pursuant to paragraph 2 and, in cooperation with the European Asylum Agency, of the modalities for the transfer. 4. The European Asylum Agency shall ensure the swift transfer of the applicant from the Member State where he or she is present to the Member State responsible. 5. The obligations set out in Article 39, 40, 41 and 42 shall apply mutatis mutandis
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 1
1. The requested Member State shall make the necessary checks, and shall give a decision on the request to take charge of an applicant within one monthtwo weeks of receipt of the request.
Proposal for a regulation Chapter 6 – section 4
Procedures for take back notifications Submitting a take back notification 1. In a situation referred to in Article 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notification at the latest within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, and transfer that person to the Member State responsible . 2. A take back notification shall be made using a standard form and shall include proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from the statements of the person concerned. 3. The Member State responsible shall confirm immediately the receipt of the notification to the Member State which made the notification. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take back notifications . Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Chapter 6 – section 4 – title
Procedures for take back notificationrequests
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – title
Submitting a take back notificationrequest when a new application has been lodged in the requesting Member State
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – title
Submitting a take back notificationrequest when a new application has been lodged in the requesting Member State
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – title
Submitting a take back notificationrequest
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. In a situation referred to in Article 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notificationrequest at the latest within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, and transfer that person to the Member State responsible .
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. In a situation referred to in Article 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notificationrequest at the latest within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, and transfer that person to the Member State responsible .
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. In a situation referred to in Article 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (ed) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notification at the latest within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, and transfer that person to the Member State responsible .
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. In a situation referred to in Article 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notificationrequest at the latest within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, and transfer that person to the Member State responsible .
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Where the take back request is not made within the periods laid down in paragraph 2, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the new application was lodged.
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Where the take back request is not made within the periods laid down in paragraph 1, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the new application was lodged.
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Where the take back request is not made within the periods laid down in paragraph 1, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the new application was lodged.
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. A take back notificationrequest shall be made using a standard form and shall include proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from the statements of the person concerned enabling the authorities of the requested Member State to check whether it is responsible on the basis of the criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. A take back notificationrequest shall be made using a standard form and shall include proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from the statements of the person concerned.
3. The Member State responsible shall confirm immediately the receipt of the notificationrequest to the Member State which made the notificationrequest.
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 3
3. The Member State responsible shall confirm immediately the receipt of the notificationrequest to the Member State which made the notificationrequest.
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 3
3. The Member State responsible shall confirm immediately the receipt of the notificationrequest to the Member State which made the notificationrequest.
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take back notifications requests. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take back notifications requests. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take back notifications requests. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 a (new)
Article 26 a Replying to a take back request 1. The requested Member State shall make the necessary checks and shall give a decision on the request to take back the person concerned as quickly as possible and in any event no later than one month from the date on which the request was received. When the request is based on data obtained from the Eurodac system, that time limit shall be reduced to two weeks. 2. Failure to act within the one month period or the two weeks period mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be tantamount to accepting the request, and shall entail the obligation to take back the person concerned, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 a (new)
Article 26 a Replying to a take back request 1. The requested Member State shall make the necessary checks and shall give a decision on the request to take back the person concerned as quickly as possible and in any event no later than one month from the date on which the request was received. When the request is based on data obtained from the Eurodac system, that time limit shall be reduced to two weeks. 2. Failure to act within the one month period or the two weeks period mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be tantamount to accepting the request, and shall entail the obligation to take back the person concerned, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 1
1. Where the requested Member State accepts to take charge of an applicant , the requesting Member State shall notify the applicant in writing without delin 5 days of the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible and, where applicable, of not examining his or her application for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 1
1. Where the requested Member State accepts to take charge of an applicant , the requesting Member State shall notify the applicant in writing without delin 5 days of the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible and, where applicable, of not examining his or her application for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 2
2. Where the applicant or another person referred to in Article 20(1) (c), (d) or (e) is to be taken back, the Member State where the person concerned is present shall notify the person concerned in writing without undue delay the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 2
2. Where the applicant or another person referred to in Article 20(1) (c), (d) or (ed) is to be taken back, the Member State where the person concerned is present shall notify the person concerned in writing without undue delay the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. The applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (ed) shall have the right to an effective remedy, in the form of an appeal or a review, in fact and in law, against a transfer decision, before a court or tribunal.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall provide for a period of 730 days after the notification of a transfer decision within which the person concerned may exercise his or her right to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall provide for a reasonable period, of 7no less than 15 days, after the notification of a transfer decision within which the person concerned may exercise his or her right to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall provide for a period of 7not less than 15 days after the notification of a transfer decision within which the person concerned may exercise his or her right to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall provide for a period of 710 days after the notification of a transfer decision within which the person concerned may exercise his or her right to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 3
3. For appeals against, or reviews of, transfer decisions, the court or tribunal shall decide within a period of 15 days on the substance of the appeal or review. No tTransfers shall take place before thisafter the period of 15 days if no decision on the appeal or review is taken or the appeal is rejected.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new4
new4. The scope of the effective remedy laid down in paragraph 1 shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new4
new4. The scope of the effective remedy laid down in paragraph 1 shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new4
new4. The scope of the effective remedy laid down in paragraph 1 shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 5
5. Where no transfer decision referred to in paragraph 1 is taken, Member States shall provide for an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, where the applicant claims that a family member or, in the case of unaccompanied minors, a relative is legally present in a Member State other than the one which is examining his or her application for international protection, and considers therefore that other Member State as Member State responsible for examining the application.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 5
5. Where no transfer decision referred to in paragraph 1 is taken, Member States shall provide for an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, where the applicant claims that a family member or, in the case of unaccompanied minors, a relative is legally present in a Member State other than the one which is examining his or her application for international protection, and considers therefore that other Member State as Member State responsible for examining the application. The person concerned may exercise his or her right to such an effective remedy as of the day after the deadline for notifying the transfer decision in accordance with Article 27(1) and within a period of at least 15 days from the notification of the transfer decision. For the purpose of exercising the right to an effective remedy in accordance with this paragraph, Member States shall notify the applicant in writing that a transfer decision has not been taken within the deadline for the notification of the transfer decision in accordance with Article 27(1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 5
5. Where no transfer decision referred to in paragraph 1 is taken, Member States shall provide for an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, where the applicant claims that a family member or, in the case of unaccompanied minors, a relativnother Member State is responsible for examining the application. The person concerned may exercise his legally present in a Member State other than the one which is examining his or her right to such an effective remedy as of the day after the deadline for notifying the transfer decision in accordance with Article 27(1) and within a period of 15 days therefrom. For ther application for international protection, and considers therefore that other Member State as Member State responsible for examining the application purpose of exercising the right to an effective remedy in accordance with this paragraph, Member States shall notify the applicant in writing that a transfer decision has not been taken within the deadline for the notification of the transfer decision in accordance with Article 27(1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 5
5. Where no transfer decision referred to in paragraph 1 is taken, Member States shall provide for an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, where the applicant claims that a family member or, in the case of unaccompanied minors, a relative is legally present in a Member State other than the one which is examining his or her application for international protection, and considers therefore that nother Member State as Member Stateis responsible for examining the application.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new6
new6. Without prejudice to the applicant's right to choose his or her own legal advisor or other counselor at his or her own cost, Member States shall ensure that the person concerned has access to legal assistance and representation and, where necessary, to linguistic assistance and intercultural mediation, at all stages of the procedure provided for in this Regulation.
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Alessandra MUSSOLINI, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new6
new6. Without prejudice to the applicant's right to choose his or her own legal adviser or other counsellor at his or her own cost, Member States shall ensure that the person concerned has access to legal assistance and representation for minor applicants and, where necessary, to linguistic assistance at all stages of the procedures provided for in this Regulation.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new6
new6. Without prejudice to the applicant's right to choose his or her own legal adviser or other counsellor at his or her own cost, Member States shall ensure that the person concerned has access to legal assistance and representation and, where necessary, to linguistic assistance at all stages of the procedures provided for in this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new6
new6. Member States shall ensure that the person concerned has access to free legal assistance and, where necessary, to linguistic assistance, in line with Article 6ANEW.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that legal assistance is granted on request free of charge where the person concerned cannot afford the costs involved. Member States may provide that, as regards fees and other costs, the treatment of applicants shall not be more favourable than the treatment generally accorded to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that legal assistance is granted on request free of charge where the person concerned cannot afford the costs involved. Member States may provide that, as regards fees and other costs, the treatment of applicants shall not be more favourable than the treatment generally accorded to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance.
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Without arbitrarily restricting access to legal assistance, Member States may provide that free legal assistance and representation not be granted where the appeal or review is considered by the competent authority or a court or tribunal to have no tangible prospect of success.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Without arbitrarily restricting access to legal assistance, Member States may provide that free legal assistance and representation not be granted where the appeal or review is considered by the competent authority or a court or tribunal to have no tangible prospect of success.deleted
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Ana GOMES, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation pursuant to this paragraph is taken by an authority other than a court or tribunal, Member States shall provide the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal to challenge that decision. In case the decision is challenged, this remedy shall be an integral part of the remedy referred to in paragraph 1.deleted
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Dietmar KÖSTER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 4
In complying with the requirements set out in this paragraph, Member States shall ensure that legal assistance and representation is not arbitrarily restricted and that the applicant’s effective access to justice is not hindered.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 5
Legal assistance shall include at least the provision of information on the procedure in the light of the applicant´s individual circumstances, assistance in the preparation of relevant documentation and personal interview, including participation in the personal interview as necessary and the preparation of the required procedural documents and representation before a court or tribunal and may be restricted to legal advisors or counsellors specifically designated by national law to provide assistance and representation. Procedures for access to legal assistance shall be laid down in national law.
Proposal for a regulation Article 29
1. Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is subject to the procedure established by this Regulation. 2. When there is a significant risk of absconding, Member States may detain the person concerned in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with this Regulation, on the basis of an individual assessment and only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively. 3. Detention shall be for as short a period as possible and shall be for no longer than the time reasonably necessary to fulfil the required administrative procedures with due diligence until the transfer under this Regulation is carried out. Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notification shall not exceed two weeks from the lodging of the application. The Member State carrying out the procedure in accordance with this Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply on a take charge request . Such reply shall be given within one week of receipt of the take charge request. Failure to reply within the one- week period shall be tantamount to accepting the take charge request and shall entail the obligation to take the person in charge , including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival. Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the transfer of that person from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision . When the requesting Member State fails to comply with the deadlines for submitting a take charge request or take back notification or where the transfer does not take place within the period of four weeks referred to in the third subparagraph, the person shall no longer be detained. Articles 24, 26 and 30 shall continue to apply accordingly. 4. As regards the detention conditions and the guarantees applicable to persons detained, in order to secure the transfer procedures to the Member State responsible, Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Directive 2013/33/EU shall apply.Article 29 deleted Detention
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is subject to the procedure established by this Regulation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 1
31. Member States may hold a person in detention to establish his or her right to asylum.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER, Birgit SIPPEL
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2
2. When there is a significant risk of absconding,In exceptional cases Member States may detain thea person concerned in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with this Regulation, on the basis of an individual assessment andonly where the applicant has been intercepted after having tried to abscond or where it appears evident on the basis of his or her concrete behavior that he or she intends to abscond, and in any case only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively. Minors shall never be detained.
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2
2. When there is a significant risk of absconding, Member States may detain the person concerned in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with this Regulation, on the basis of an individual assessment and only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively.
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2
2. When there is a significant risk of absconding, Member States may detain the person concerned in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with this Regulation, on the basis of an individual assessment and only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively, based on an individual assessment of the applicant's circumstances carried out by an independent judge.
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2
2. When there is a significant risk of abscondingare indications that there is a risk of absconding, in particular when the applicant did not comply with his obligations set out in Article 5, Member States mayshall detain the person concerned in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with this Regulation, on the basis of an individual assessment and only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively. Detention shall be kept as short as possible and shall not exceed 4 weeks.
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Because of measures taken to counteract absconding, the cost of detention in certain Member States is very high. The European Union Agency for Asylum and the AMIF shall provide the financial aid and resources necessary to ensure effective detention without placing too heavy a burden on public funds.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Birgit SIPPEL, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Detention shall be for as short a period as possible and shall be for no longer than the time reasonably necessary to fulfil the required administrative procedures with due diligence until the transfer under this Regulation is carried out, and in any case it shall not exceed 3 months.
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Alessandra MUSSOLINI, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Minors shall not be detained; Member States shall instead accommodate minors and families with minors in non- custodial, community-based placements while their immigration status is processed.
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notification shall not exceed two weeks from the lodging of the application. The Member State carrying out the procedure in accordance with this Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply on a take charge request . Such reply shall be given within one week of receipt of the take charge request. Failure to reply within the one- week period shall be tantamount to accepting the take charge request and shall entail the obligation to take the person in charge , including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notification shall not exceed twoone weeks from the lodging of the application. The Member State carrying out the procedure in accordance with this Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply on a take charge request . Such reply shall be given within one week of receipt of the take charge request. Failure to reply within the one-week period shall be tantamount to accepting the take charge request and shall entail the obligation to take the person in charge , including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the transfer of that person from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within fourone weeks from the final transfer decision .
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4
When the requesting Member State fails to comply with the deadlines for submitting a take charge request or take back notification or where the transfer does not take place within the period of four weeks referred to in the third subparagraph, the person shall no longer be detained. Articles 24, 26 and 30 shall continue to apply accordingly.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4
When the requesting Member State fails to comply with the deadlines for submitting a take charge request or take back notification or where the transfer does not take place within the period of fourone weeks referred to in the third subparagraph, the person shall no longer be detained. Articles 24, 26 and 30 shall continue to apply accordingly.
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Detention of applicants shall be ordered in writing by judicial authorities. The detention order shall state the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based and shall contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons as to why they could not be applied effectively.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Miriam DALLI, Kati PIRI, Dietmar KÖSTER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 4
4. As regards the detention conditions, which shall fully respect the person´s fundamental rights, and the guarantees applicable to persons detained, in order to secure the transfer procedures to the Member State responsible, Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Directive 2013/33/EU shall apply.
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. For the purpose of the implementation of this Regulation, Member States shall not hold children in detention.
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The determining Member State whose take charge request referred to in Article 20(1) (a) was accepted or who made a take back notification referred to in Article 20(1) (b) to (ed) shall take a transfer decision at the latest within one week of acceptance or notification and transfer the applicant or the person concerned to the Member State responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
newThe transfer of the applicant or of another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out in accordance with the national law of the requesting Member State, after consultation between the Member States concerned, as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision . Especially when the transfer to the Member State responsible is carried out on a voluntary basis, the European Union Agency for Asylum shall play a key role in assuring that the applicant is effectively transferred.
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
newThe transfer of the applicant or of another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (ed) from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out in accordance with the national law of the requesting Member State, after consultation between the Member States concerned, as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision .
Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. The costs necessary to transfer an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) to the Member State responsible shall be met by the transferring Member Stategeneral budget of the Union.
Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. The costs necessary to transfer an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (ed) to the Member State responsible shall be met by the transferring Member Stategeneral budget of the Union.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Miriam DALLI, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 31 a (new)
Article 31 a Costs of reception The costs of reception of applicants covered by a determining Member State until the transfer to the Member State responsible (or until the moment in which it assumes responsibility on the application) should be refunded by the general budget of the Union.
2017/04/25
LIBE
249 amendments...
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Regulation lays down the criteria and mechanisms for determining the single 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 Member State responsible’).
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, David BORRELLI, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco ZULLO, Daniela AIUTO, Laura AGEA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Marco VALLI
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Regulation lays down the criteria and mechanisms for determining the single 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 Member State responsible’).
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘third-country national’ means any person who is not a citizen of the Union within the meaning of Article 20(1) TFEU, including stateless persons pursuant to Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, and who is not national of a State which participates in this Regulation by virtue of an agreement with the Union;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘third-country national’ means any person who is not a citizen of the Union within the meaning of Article 20(1) TFEU, including stateless persons pursuant to Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and who is not national of a State which participates in this Regulation by virtue of an agreement with the Union;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) ‘application for international protection’ means an application for international protection as defined in Article 2(h) of Directive 2011/95/EUthe 1951 Geneva Convention;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) ‘applicant’ means a third-country national or a stateless person pursuant to Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, who has made an application for international protection in respect of which a final decision has not yet been taken;
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) ‘applicant’ means a third-country national or a stateless person pursuant to Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons who has made an application for international protection in respect of which a final decision has not yet been taken;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) ‘examination of an application for international protection’ means any examination of, or decision or ruling concerning, an application for international protection by the competent authorities in accordance with Directive 2013/32/EU and Directive 2011/95/EU, except for procedures for determining the Member State responsible in accordance with this Regulathe 1951 Geneva Convention;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) ‘beneficiary of international protection’ means a third-country national or a stateless person pursuant to Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, who has been granted international protection as defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU;
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) ‘beneficiary of international protection’ means a third-country national or a stateless person pursuant to Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Person who has been granted international protection as defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) ‘beneficiary of international protection’ means a third-country national or a stateless person who has been granted international protection as defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 2011/95/EUthe 1951 Geneva Convention;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – introductory part
(g) ‘family members’ means, insofar as the family already existed before the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States , the following members of the applicant’s family who are present on the territory of the Member States:
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – introductory part
(g) ‘family members’ means, insofar as the family already existed before the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States , the following members of the applicant’s family who are present on the territory of the Member States:
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – introductory part
(g) ‘family members’ means, insofar as the family already existed before the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States in the country of origin, the following members of the applicant’s family who are present on the territory of the Member States:
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 1
- the spouse of the applicant or his or her unmarried partner in a stable relationship, where the law or practice of the Member State concerned treats unmarried couples in a way comparable to married couples under its law relating to third-country nationals, where a Member State does not recognise such a relationship, the applicant(s) shall be relocated to a Member State where such a relationship is recognized;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 1
- the spouse of the applicant or his or her unmarried partner in a stable relationship, where the law or practice of the Member State concerned treats unmarried couples in a way comparable to married couples under its law relating to third-country nationals,
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 2
- the minor children of couples referred to in the first indent or of the applicant, on condition that they are unmarried and regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law,
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 2
- the minor children of couples referred to in the first indent or of the applicant, on condition that they are unmarried and regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law,
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Rosa D'AMATO, Tiziana BEGHIN, Marco ZULLO, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Marco VALLI, David BORRELLI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Eleonora EVI
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 2
- the minor children of couples referred to in the first indent or of the applicant, on condition that they are unmarried and regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law,
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER, Birgit SIPPEL, Miriam DALLI
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 2
- the minor childrensons and daughters of couples referred to in the first indent or of the applicant, on condition that they are unmarried and regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law,
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 2
- the minor children of couples referred to in the first indent or of the applicant, on condition that they are unmarried and regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law,
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 2
- the unmarried minor children of couples referred to in the first indent or of the applicant, on condition that they are unmarried and regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law,
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 2 a (new)
- the dependent married minor children of couples referred to in the first indent or of the applicant, regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law;
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 3
- when the applicant is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for the applicant, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the adult is presentthe mother and the father of the applicant or beneficiary of international protection,
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 3
- when the applicant is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for the applicant, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the adult is present,
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 3
- the father, mother or, when the applicant is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or, another adult responsible for the applicant, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the adult is present,
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 3
- when the applicant is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for the applicant, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the adult is present,
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 3
- when the applicant is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for the applicant, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the adult is present,
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Carlos COELHO
- when the applicant is a minor and married, the father or mother or another adult responsible for him or her whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the beneficiary is present, on condition that the minor is dependent on the father, mother or other responsible adult;
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 4
- when theif the applicant or beneficiary of international protection is a minor and unmarried, the famother, mothe father or another adult responsible for him or her whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the adult or beneficiary of international protection is present,
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 4
- when the beneficiary of international protection is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for him or herthe beneficiary of international protection whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the beneficiary is present,
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, David BORRELLI, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco ZULLO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 4
- whenthe father or mother of the beneficiary of international protection is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or, if the applicant is a minor, another adult responsible for him or her whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the beneficiary is present,
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 4
- when the beneficiary of international protection is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for him or her whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the beneficiary is present,
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 4 a (new)
- when the beneficiary of international protection is a minor and married, the father, mother or another adult responsible for him or her whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the beneficiary is present, on condition that the minor is dependent on the father, mother or other responsible adult;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5
- the sibling or siblings of the applicant;deleted
- the sibling or siblings of the applicant;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5
- the sibling or siblings of the applicant;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5
- the sibling or siblings of the applicant;deleted
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Anders VISTISEN, Mariya GABRIEL, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5
- the sibling or siblings of the applicant, where the proof of the relationship is provided;
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Piernicola PEDICINI, Rosa D'AMATO
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5 a (new)
- the aunt or uncle or grandparent of the beneficiary of international protection, if they are present in the territory of a Member State, regardless of whether the applicant and/or the beneficiary was born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5 a (new)
- the father or mother, grandmother, grandfather, aunt or uncle of the applicant, regardless of whether the applicant was born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law;
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5 a (new)
- the grandparents of the applicant or beneficiary of international protection;
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Birgit SIPPEL
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5 b (new)
- the grandchildren of the applicant;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) ‘relative’ means the applicant’s adult aunt or uncle or grandparent or cousin or nephew or niece who is present in the territory of a Member State, regardless of whether the applicant was born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law;
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Birgit SIPPEL
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) ‘relative’ means the applicant’s adult aunt or uncle or grandparentcousin who is present in the territory of a Member State, regardless of whether the applicant was born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) ‘minor’ means a third-country national or a stateless person pursuant to Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, below the age of 18 years;
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) ‘representativeguardian’ means a person or an organisation appointed by the competent bodies in order to assist and represent an unaccompanied minor in procedures provided for in this Regulation with a view to ensursafeguarding the best interests of the child and exercising legal capacity fhis or the minor where necessary. Where an organisation is appointed as a representative, it shall designate a person responsible for carrying out its duties in respect of the minor, in accordance with this Regulationr general well-being in all procedures provided for in this Regulation and exercising legal capacity for the minor where necessary;
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Piernicola PEDICINI, Eleonora EVI, Rosa D'AMATO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) “representative”‘guardian’ means a person or an organisation appointed by the competent bodies in order to assist and represent an unaccompanied minor in procedures provided for in this Regulation with a view to ensuring the best interests of the child and exercising legal capacity for the minor where necessary. Where an organisation is appointed as a representative, it shall designate a person responsible for carrying out its duties in respect of the minor, in accordance with this Regulation;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
(ka) 'sponsor' means a national of a Member State, or a third country national authorized by a Member State to stay in its territory as holder of any residence permit issued under EU law or national law of that Member State for a period of one year or longer, or an entity registered according to the delegated act referred to in Article 14(4).
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point l
(l) ‘residence document’ means any authorisation issued by the authorities of a Member State authorising a third-country national or a stateless person pursuant to Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, to stay on its territory, including the documents substantiating the authorisation to remain on the territory under temporary protection arrangements or until the circumstances preventing a removal order from being carried out no longer apply, with the exception of visas and residence authorisations issued during the period required to determine the Member State responsible as established in this Regulation or during the examination of an application for international protection or an application for a residence permit;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point n
(n) ‘risk of absconding’ means the proven existence of reasons in an individual case, which are based on specific and objective criteria strictly defined by law, in line with guidelines set up by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, to believe that an applicant or a third-country national or a stateless person who is subject to a transfer procedure may abscond;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point o
o) ‘benefitting Member State' means the Member State benefitting from the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation and carrying out the allocation of the applicant;deleted
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point o
(o) 'benefitting Member State' means the Member State benefitting from the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation and carrying out the allocation of the applicant;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point o
(o) 'benefitting Member State' means the Member State benefitting from the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation and carrying out the allocation of the applicant;deleted
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point o
(o) ‘benefitting Member State’ means the Member State benefitting from the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation and carrying out the allocation of the applicant;
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point p
(p) ‘Member State of allocation’ means the Member States to which an applicant will be allocated under the allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point p a (new)
(pa) - 'sponsor' means a European citizen , or a third country national legally residing in a Member State for a period of at least one year, or an entity registered, that respect the requirements set out in the delegated act referred to in Article 18a, paragraph 3.
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q
(q) ‘resettled person’ means a person subject to the process of resettlement whereby, on a request from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (‘UNHCR’) based on a person’s need for international protection, third-country nationals are transferred from a third country and established in a Member State where they are permitted to reside with one of the following statuses: (i) ‘refugee status’ within the meaning of point (e) of Article 2 of Directive 2011/95/EU; (ii) ‘subsidiary protection status’ within the meaning of point (g) of Article 2 of Directive 2011/95/EU; or (iii) any other status which offers similar rights and benefits under national and Union law as those referred to in points (i) and (ii);deleted
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Kati PIRI, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q – introductory part
(q) ‘'resettled person’' means a person subject to thea process of resettlement whereby, on a request frombased on a person's need for international protection by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (‘'UNHCR’) based on a person’s need for international protection') or by other entities or sponsors having concluded a dedicated agreement with the relevant Members State's authorities, third-country nationals are transferred from a third country and established in a Member State where they are permitted to reside with one of the following statuses:
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q – introductory part
(q) ‘'resettled person’' means a person subject to thea process of resettlement whereby, on a request based on a person's need for international protection and coming from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (‘'UNHCR’) based on a person’s need for international protection'), third-country nationals are transferred from a third country and established in a Member State where they are permitted to reside with one of the following statuses:
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q – point i
(i) ‘refugee status’ within the meaning of point (e) ofas defined by Article 21 of Directive 2011/95/EUthe 1951 Geneva Convention;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q – point ii
(ii) ‘subsidiary protection status’ within the meaning of point (g) of Article 2 of Directive 2011/95/EU; ordeleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q – point iii
(iii) any other status which offers similar rights and benefits under national and Union law as those referred to in points (i) and (ii);deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point r a (new)
(ra) "temporary reception centers" means the centres set up pursuant to article 3-bis, paragraph 2, point c), and paragraph 3, in which international protection applicants will be accommodated pending their transfer to the Member State responsible for examination of their application;
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point r a (new)
(ra) 'Arrivals' means 'applicants' as defined in Article 2 (1) c, as well as third- country nationals or stateless persons who have irregularly entered the territory of a Member State and have not made an application for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point r b (new)
(rb) «third State' receiving office» means all those Offices outside the territories of the Member States of the European Union qualified to receive the international protection applications pursuant article 3-bis, paragraph 1, points a) e b).
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall examine any application for international protection by a third-country national or a stateless person who applies on the territory of any one of them, including at the border or in the transit zones. The application shall be examined by a single Member State, on behalf of the European Union, which shall be the one which the criteria set out in Chapter III indicate is responsible.
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall examine any application for international protection by a third-country national or a stateless person who applies on the territory of any one of them, including at the border or in the transit zones. The application shall be examined by a single Member State, which shall be the one which the criteria set out in Chapter III, IV and VII indicate is responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall examine any application for international protection by a third-country national or a stateless person who applies on the territory of any one of them, including at the border, in third countries or in the transit zones. The application shall be examined by a single Member State, which shall be the one which the criteria set out in Chapter III indicate iidentified as responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where no Member State responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this Regulation, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall be responsible for examining it.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where no Member State responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this Regulation, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall be responsible for examining it.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where no Member State responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this Regulation, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall be responsible for examining it. This provision shall not be applied in those cases in which the first Member State where the application for international protection was lodged is a benefitting State in accordance to Article 34.
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Ana GOMES, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER, Birgit SIPPEL
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where no Member State responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this Regulation, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall be responsible for examining itshall be determined by the allocation mechanism pursuant to Chapter VII.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where no Member State responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this Regulation, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodgednt is present shall be responsible for examining it.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the determining Member State shall continue to examine the criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether another Member State can be designated as responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of F applicant would be subjected to a real risk of a serious violation of his or her fundamental Rrights of the European Union, the determining Member State shall continue to examine the criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether another Member State can be designated as responsible.
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Kati PIRI, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants applicant's fundamental rights would be violated in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the determining Member State shall continue to examine the criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether another Member State can be designated as responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set out in Chapter III or to the first Member State with which the application was lodged, the determining Member State shall become the Member State responsible.
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set out in Chapter III or to the first Member State with which the application was lodged, the determining Member State shall become the Member State responsible, the Member State responsible shall be determined by the allocation mechanism pursuant to Chapter VII.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because the applicant is affected by a serious disease or inability and the transfer would expose him/her to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the determining State shall assume the competence to examine the application.
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Petri SARVAMAA, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Mariya GABRIEL, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Any Member State shall retain the right to send an applicant to a safe third country, subject to the rules and safeguards laid down in Directive 2013/32/EU.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Before applying the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall: (a) examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; and (b) examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: (i) the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or (ii) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Before applying the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall: (a) examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; and (b) examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: (i) the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or (ii) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Before applying the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall: (a) examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; and (b) examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: (i) the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or (ii) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Before applying the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall: (a) examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; and (b) examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: (i) the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or (ii) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Before applying the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall: (a) examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; and (b) examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: (i) the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or (ii) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, David BORRELLI, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; andeleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point b – introductory part
(b) examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply applies as referred in Article 3 (3) - point b - point ii:
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point b – point i
(i) the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; ordeleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State considers an application inadmissible or examines an application in accelerated procedure pursuant to paragraph 3, that Member State shall be considered the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State considers an application inadmissible or examines an application in accelerated procedure pursuant to paragraph 3, that Member State shall be considered the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State considers an application inadmissible or examines an application in accelerated procedure pursuant to paragraph 3, that Member State shall be considered the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State considers an application inadmissible or examines an application in accelerated procedure pursuant to paragraph 3, that Member State shall be considered the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State considers an application inadmissible or examines an application in accelerated procedure pursuant to paragraph 3, that Member State shall be considered the Member State responsible.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State considers an application inadmissible or examines an application in accelerated procedure pursuant to paragraph 3, that Member State shall be considered the Member State responsible unless another Member State is responsible according to Article 15.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State considers an application inadmissible or examines an application in accelerated procedure pursuant to paragraph 3, that Member State shall be considered the Member State responsible.
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States.deleted
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States.deleted
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States. In the case when the applicant has left or was removed from the territory of the Member State as a result of a return decision or a removal order issued following the rejection or withdrawal of the application and a subsequent application is made later in another Member State, the applicant shall be removed from the territories of the Member states without initializing a take back procedure to the Member State initially responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant within a 24 month period in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether and provided that the applicant has not left or wasto the country of origin or has not been removed from the territoriesy of the Member States.
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a Article 3-bis Presentation of international protection applications 1. International protection applications may also be lodged: a) at the dedicated "International Protection Application Offices" that the European Commission may establish pursuant to a bilateral agreement with a third country, in refugee camps situated in countries adjacent to countries in conflict or in countries from which there is a massive exodus of persons who aspire to international protection status. At the time of establishment of such offices, the Commission: i. shall consult the Council and Political and Security Committee in order to guarantee co-ordination with the activity of EU Delegations for management of the crises which may be occurring on the territory of that third country State; ii. agree with the Member States the sufficient recruitment mechanisms to find the qualified human resources needed for execution of the tasks of the said offices. b) at the offices of EU Delegations or diplomatic Representatives of Member States previously identified by the Commission, in agreement with the European structure to which the Delegation or Member State responds. 2. The European Union shall make appropriate bilateral agreements with third countries in which the office is to be established for the institution of "International Protection Application Offices" referred to at 3 paragraph, point c) above. Such bilateral agreements shall relate to: a) the ability to establish the office; b) the legal status of the EU personnel assigned to that office; c) the creation of temporary reception centres at the offices for applicants awaiting their transfer to the European Union; d) any co-operation with other international entities or bodies or N.G.O's for the management of temporary reception centres referred to at letter c); e) the ability to create humanitarian corridors via air, sea or land transport for applicants from the temporary reception centre to the territory of the European Union; f) the willingness of the third country to accept the return of applicants coming from that Centre in the event of final refusal of their application for international protection. 3. Similar agreements to those set forth in paragraph 2 may be reached by the European Union with third countries where EU Delegations or Member State diplomatic representatives are established, as identified pursuant to art. 3.1.d).
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection has entered irregularly into the territory of the Member States, the application shall be made in the Member State of that first entry. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection is legally present in a Member State, the application shall be made in that Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection has entered irregularly into the territory of the Member States, the application shall be made in the Member State of that first entry. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection is legally present in a Member State, the application shall be made in that Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection has entered irregularly into the territory of the Member States, the application shall be made in the Member State of that first entry. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection is legally present in a Member State, the application shall be made in that Member State. If the application is refused the Member State should repatriate the irregular migrant.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection has entered irregularly into the territory of the Member States, the application shall be made in the Member State of that first where he or she is presentry. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection is legally present in a Member State, the application shall be made in that Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection has entered irregularly into the territory of thea Member States, the application shall be made in theat Member State of that first entry. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection is already legally present in a Member State, the application shall be made in that Member State.
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The applicant shall submit as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview pursuant to Article 7, all the elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member Statesll the available elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States. The competent authorities shall take into account the elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible submitted at any stage of the procedure, provided they have been submitted before the final decision determining the Member State responsible. In the period between the final decision and the actual transfer to a designated Member State, other elements provided by the applicant shall exceptionally be taken into consideration if the delay in submitting them is due to force majeure.
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The applicant shall submit as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview pursuant to Article 7, all the elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States. ll the available elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States. The competent authorities shall take into account the elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible only insofar as they have been submitted before the final decision determining the Member State responsible. In the period between the final decision and the actual transfer to a designated Member State, Member States shall take into consideration other elements provided by the applicant if the delay in submitting them is due to force majeure.
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The applicant shall submit as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview pursuant to Article 7, all the elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of ll the available elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States. The competent authorities shall take into account the elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible only insofar as they have been submitted before the set deadline of the Member State to submit the take charge request to another Member States.
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The applicant shall submit as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview pursuant to Article 7, all the elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of ll the available elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States. The competent authorities shall take into account the elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible only insofar as they have been submitted before the set deadline of the Member State to submit the take charge request to another Member Sstates.
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The applicant for international protection shall submit as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview pursuant to Article 7, allll the available elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States. The competent authorities shall take into account the elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities ofonly insofar as they have been submitted before the final decision determining the Member States responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The applicant shall submit as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview pursuant to Article 7, all th, all the available elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States.
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The applicant shallmust submit as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview pursuant to Article 7, all the elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States.
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The applicant shall submit as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview pursuant to Article 7, all the elements and information relevant for determiningquired by the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5
Consequences of non-compliance 1. If an applicant does not comply with the obligation set out in Article 4(1), the Member State responsible in accordance with this Regulation shall examine the application in an accelerated procedure, in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU. 2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State. 3. The applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care, during the procedures under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present. 4. The competent authorities shall take into account elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible only insofar as these were submitted within the deadline set out in Article 4(2).Article 5 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. If an applicant does not comply with the obligation set out in Article 4(1), the Member State responsible in accordance with this Regulation shall examine the application in an accelerated procedure, in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. If an applicant does not comply with the obligation set out in Article 4(1), the Member State responsible in accordance with this Regulation shall examine the application in an accelerated procedure, in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. If an applicant does not comply with the obligation set out in Article 4(1), the Member State responsible in accordance with this Regulation shall examine the application in an accelerated procedure, in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU and detain the applicant to secure the transfer to the Member State responsible according to Article 29.4.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. If an applicant does not comply with the obligation set out in Article 4(1), the Member State responsible in accordance with this Regulation shall examine themay suspend the asylum application in an accelerated procedure, in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EUd carry out repatriation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State.deleted
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State. The competent authorities of that Member State shall inform the European Union Agency for Asylum thereof in a timely manner and shall introduce relevant information into the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) where the applicant has left the territory of that Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present may decide to examine the application in an accelerated procedure, in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even whenIf the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State he or she must be considered an irregular migrant and, when found, must be repatriated.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall not continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even whenin case the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care, during the procedures under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care, during the procedures under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present.deleted
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care, during the procedures under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present.deleted
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care, during the procedures under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present. This paragraph shall not apply to minors and families with children.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The applicant shallmust not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care, during the procedures under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present.
3. The applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 196(6) of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care, during the procedures under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. 4. The applicant shall enjoy the rights according to Directive 2011/51/EU only 8 years after a status has been granted.
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The competent authorities shall take into account elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible only insofar as these were submitted within the deadline set out in Article 4(2).deleted
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Tiziana BEGHIN, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. As soon as an application for international protection is lodged within the meaning of Article 21(2) in a Member State, its competent authorities shall inform the applicant of the application of this Regulation, in particular the opportunity to provide information regarding the presence of family members or any other family relations in other Member States and of the obligations set out in Article 4 as well asnd the consequences of non-compliance set out in Article 5 , and in particular:
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. As soon as an application for international protection is lodgregistered within the meaning of Article 21(2)7 [Proposal for a regulation establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU] in a Member State, its competent authorities shall inform the applicant of the application of this Regulation and of the obligations set out in Article 4 as well as the consequences of non-compliance set out in Article 5 , and in particular :
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. As soon as an application for international protection is lodgedmade within the meaning of Article 21(2) in a Member State, its competent authorities shall inform the applicant of the application of this Regulation and of the obligations set out in Article 4 as well as the consequences of non-compliance set out in Article 5 , and in particular :
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. As soon as an application for international protection is lodged within the meaning of Article 21(2)8 [Proposal for the Asylum Procedures Regulation] in a Member State, its competent authorities shall inform the applicant of the application of this Regulation and of the obligations set out in Article 4 as well as the consequences of non-compliance set out in Article 5 , and in particular :
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. As soon as an application for international protection is lodgedmade within the meaning of Article 21(27 ( Proposal for the Asylum Procedures Regulation ) in a Member State, its competent authorities shall inform the applicant of the application of this Regulation and of the obligations set out in Article 4 as well as the consequences of non-compliance set out in Article 5 , and in particular :
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) that the right to apply for international protection does not encompass any choice of the applicant which Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection;deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) that the right to apply for international protection does not encompass any choice of the applicant which Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection;, except when provided within the allocation mechanism under the terms of Chapter VII.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) that the right to apply for international protection does not encompass any choice of the applicant which Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, except when provided under the terms of Article 36;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) of the right to provide information on any meaningful links with a Member State for the purpose of determining that Member State as responsible for examining the application for international protection;
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) of the right for the applicant to provide information about the presence in any Member State of meaningful links relevant under the provisions of Chapter VII of this Regulation
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Tiziana BEGHIN, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) of the objectives of this Regulation and the consequences of making another application in a different Member State as well as the consequences of leaving the Member State where he or she is obliged to be present during the phases in which the Member State responsible under this Regulation is being determined and the application for international protection is being examined, in particular that the applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU in any Member State other than the one where he or she is required to be present, with the exception of emergency health careapplication for international protection is being examined;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) of the objectives of this Regulation and the consequences of making another application in a different Member State as well as the consequences of leaving the Member State where he or she is obliged to be present during the phases in which the Member State responsible under this Regulation is being determined and the application for international protection is being examined , in particular that the applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU in any Member State other than the one where he or she is required to be present, with the exception of emergency health care ;.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) of the objectives of this Regulation and the consequences of making another application in a different Member State as well as the consequences of leaving the Member State where he or she is obliged to be present during the phases in which the Member State responsible under this Regulation is being determined and the application for international protection is being examined , in particular that the applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU in any Member State other than the one where he or she is required to be present, with the exception of emergency health care ;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) of the objectives of this Regulation and the consequences of making another application in a different Member State as well as the consequences of leaving the Member State where he or she is obliged to be present during the phases in which the Member State responsible under this Regulation is being determined and the application for international protection is being examined , in particular that the applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU in any Member State other than the one where he or she is required to be present, with the exception of emergency health care ;
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, David BORRELLI, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) the opportunity to provide information regarding the presence of family members or any other family relations in other Member States;
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) of the provisions relating to family reunification, including the possibility provided by Article 13a, and in this regard on the applicable definition of family members and relatives as well as of the need for the applicant to disclose early in the procedure any relevant information that can help to establish the whereabouts of family members or relatives present in other Member States, as well as any assistance that the Member State can offer with regard to the tracing of family members, relatives, or other family relations.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) Of the procedure of immediate removal from the territories of the Member States without initiating a take back procedure in the case when the applicant has left the territory of the responsible Member State as a result of a return decision or a removal order issued following a rejection or a withdrawal of the application if that applicant later attempted to apply in a different Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) that a Member State may decide to apply the discretionary clauses under Article 19 , as well as of the specific modalities relating to this procedure;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) that a Member State may decide to apply the discretionary clauses under Article 19, as well as of the specific modalities relating to this procedure;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) of the possibility under Article 36(4) to express a maximum of three preferences for the determining Member State responsible;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
(cb) of the provisions relating to family reunification and of the provisions relating to the possibility to reunite with family members, relatives or sponsors pursuant to Articles 10-13 and 18ANEW of this Regulation;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) of the purpose of the personal interview pursuant to Article 7 and the obligation of submitting and substantiating information regarding the presence of family members, relatives or any other family relations in the Member States, including the means by which the applicant can submit such informations well as what information the applicant will be asked to submit for the purpose of determining responsibility, including for the application of the discretionary clause;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) of the purpose of the personal interview pursuant to Article 7 and the obligation of submitting and substantiating information regarding the presence of family members, relatives or any other family relations in the Member States, including the means by which the applicant can submit such informations well as what information the applicant will be asked to submit during the interview and before the set deadline of the Member State to submit a take charge request to another Member State;
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) of the purpose of the personal interview pursuant to Article 7 and the obligation of submitting and substantiating information regarding the presence of family members, relatives or any other family relations in the Member States, including the means by which the applicant can submit such informations well as the type of elements, information and evidence that the applicant will be asked to submit for the purpose of determining responsibility, including for the application of the discretionary clauses;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) of the purpose of the personal interview pursuant to Article 7 and the obligation of submitting and substantiating information regarding the presence of family members, relatives or any other family relations s well as the type of information and evidence that the applicant will have to submit for the purpose of determining the Member States responsible, including the means by which the applicant can submit such information;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) of the possibility to challenge a transfer decision within 7 days after notification and of the fact that this challenge shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon and the right to have an effective remedy before a court or tribunal in accordance with Article 28, including in a situation where no transfer decision is taken;
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Kati PIRI, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) of the possibility and modalities to challenge a transfer decision within 7 days after notification and of the fact that this challenge shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon ;and the right to have an effective remedy before a court or tribunal in accordance with Article 28, including in a situation where no transfer decision is taken.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) of the possibility to challenge a transfer decision within 7 days after notification and of the fact that this challenge shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upapplicant's right to an effective remedy, in the form of an appeal or a review, in fact and in law, against a transfer decision before a court or tribunal pursuant to Article 28, including in situations where no transfer decision is taken and of the applicable procedure to challenge a transfer decision ;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) of the possibility to challenge a transfer decision within 710 days after notification and of the fact that this challenge shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon ;
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Kati PIRI, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Miriam DALLI, Birgit SIPPEL
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) of the right to request free legal assistance and representation at all stages of the procedure.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) where applicable, of the allocation procedure set out in Chapter VII.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
(ia) in the case of unaccompanied minors, of the role and responsibilities of the guardian and of the procedure to file complaints against a guardian in confidence and safety and in full respect of children's right to be heard in this respect;
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
(ia) of the right to request free legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure provided for in Chapter V of [Proposal for the Asylum Procedures Regulation]
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
(ia) of the right to request free legal assistance and representation at all stages of the procedure.
(ib) of the right to request free legal assistance and representation at all stages of the procedure;
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided in writing in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understandand in an easily understandable form. Specific material should be provided for minors. Member States shall use the common leafletinformation material drawn up pursuant to paragraph 3 for that purpose. The information shall be provided as soon as the application is made. The information shall be provided both in written and oral form, where appropriate with the support of multimedia equipment.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided in writing in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand, in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. With regard to minors and, in particular, to unaccompanied minors, the information shall be provided in a child-friendly manner by appropriately trained staff. Member States shall use the common leafletinformation material drawn up pursuant to paragraph 3 for that purpose.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided in writing in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand. Children shall be provided information in a child- friendly manner and in a language they understand by appropriately trained staff. Member States shall use the common leafletinformation material drawn up pursuant to paragraph 3 for that purpose.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided in writing in clear, concise language, and in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand. Member States shall use the common leaflet drawn up pursuant to paragraph 3 for that purpose.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The information shall be provided as soon as the application is made. The information shall be provided both in written and oral form, where appropriate with the support of multimedia equipment. It may be given either in individual or group sessions and applicants shall have the possibility to ask questions about the procedural steps they are expected to follow with regard to the process of determining a responsible Member State in accordance with this Regulation. In the case of minors, information shall be provided in a child- friendly manner by appropriately trained staff and with the involvement of the guardian.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where necessary for the proper understanding of the applicant, the information shall also be supplied orally, for example in connection with the personal interview as referred to in Article 7. This information shall be adapted to the individual circumstances of the applicant.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The competent authorities of the Member States shall keep the applicants informed on the progress of the procedures carried out under this Regulation with regard to their application. Such information shall be provided in writing at regular intervals. In the case of minors, the competent authorities shall inform both the minor and the guardian with the same modalities. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts to establish the modalities for the provision of such information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts,Asylum Agency shall, in cooperation with the relevant national authorities draw up a common leaflet, as well as a specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors,information material containing at least the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. Thisat common leafletinformation material shall also include information regarding the application of Regulation (EU) [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation No 603/2013] and, in particular, the purpose for which the data of an applicant may be processed within Eurodac. The common leafletinformation material shall be established in such a manner as to enable Member States to complete it with additional Member State- specific information. Those implementing acts shall be adopte Asylum Agency shall create specific information material intended particularly for the following target groups: (a) adult applicants; (b) unaccompanied min accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2) ofors; (c) accompanied minors; (d) women; (e) other persons in vulnerable situation. Specific information material should be developed for cases where the corrective allocation mechanism applies and when the ordinary procedures under this Regulation apply.
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Marju LAURISTIN, Dietmar KÖSTER, Kati PIRI
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing actEuropean Asylum Agency shall, in close cooperation with the responsible national agencies, draw up a common leaflet, as well as a specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors,information materials containing at least the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. Thisat common leafletinformation material shall also include information regarding the application of Regulation (EU) [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation No 603/2013] and, in particular, the purpose for which the data of an applicant may be processed within Eurodac. The common leafletinformation material shall include information on Member States for the purposes of the allocation mechanism under Chapter VII, and shall be established in such a manner as to enable Member States to complete it with additional Member State- specific information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2) of this Regulatione European Asylum Agency shall create specific information material intended particularly for the following target groups: a) adult applicants; b) unaccompanied minors; c) accompanied minors.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing actEuropean Asylum Agency shall, in close cooperation with the responsible national agencies, draw up a common leaflet, as well as a specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors,information materials containing at least the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. Thisat common leafletinformation material shall also include information regarding the application of Regulation (EU) [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation No 603/2013] and, in particular, the purpose for which the data of an applicant may be processed within Eurodac. The common leafletinformation material shall be established in such a manner as to enable Member States to complete it with additional Member State- specific information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2) of this Regulatione European Asylum Agency shall create specific information material intended particularly for the following target groups: a) adult applicants, with especial attention to gender-sensitive material; b) unaccompanied minors; c) accompanied minors.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts,European Union Agency for Asylum shall draw up a common leafletinformation material, as well as a specific leafletchild-friendly information material for unaccompanied minors, containing at least the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. This common leafletinformation material shall also include information regarding the application of Regulation (EU) [Proposal for a Regulation establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU] and of Regulation (EU) [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation No 603/2013] and, in particular, the purpose for which the data of an applicant may be processed within Eurodac. The common leafletinformation material shall be established in such a manner as to enable Member States to complete it with additional Member State- specific information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2) of this Regulation.
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Miriam DALLI
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The competent authorities of the Member States shall keep the applicants informed on the progress of the procedures carried out under this Regulation with regard to their application. Such information shall be provided in writing at regular intervals, at least every two weeks. In the case of minors, the competent authorities shall inform both the minor and the guardian with the same modalities. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt an implementing act to establish the modalities for the provision of such information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The Asylum Agency shall provide a dedicated website with information about the CEAS, and in particular the functioning of this Regulation, targeting applicants for international protection as well as potential applicants. The information on the website shall be comprehensive and up to date and be provided in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language and available in all the major relevant languages spoken by applicants for international protection arriving in Europe.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The competent authorities of the Member States shall keep the applicants informed upon their own request on the progress of the procedures carried out under this Regulation with regard to their application. In the case of minors, the competent authorities shall inform both the minor and the guardian.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The competent authorities of the Member States shall keep the applicants informed upon their own request on the progress of the procedures carried out under this Regulation with regard to their application. In the case of minors, the competent authorities shall inform both the minor and the guardian.
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 a (new)
Article 6 a Right to free legal assistance and representation 1. Without prejudice to the applicant's right to choose his or her own legal representative at his or her own cost, Member States shall provide free legal assistance and representation on matters relating to the application of this Regulation at all stages of the procedure. 2. The free legal assistance and representation shall, at least, include: (a) the provision of information on the procedure in the light of the applicant's individual circumstances; (b) assistance in the preparation of the personal interview and supporting documents and evidence to be provided as part of the interview, including participation in the personal interview as necessary; (c) explanation of the reasons for and consequences of a transfer decision as well as information as to how to challenge that decision or how to access remedies in situations where no transfer decision is taken pursuant to Article 28.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Kati PIRI, Birgit SIPPEL
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. In order to facilitate the process of determining the Member State responsible, the determining Member State shall conduct a personal interview with the applicant, unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant pursuant to Article 4(2) is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible. The interview shall also allow the proper understanding of the information supplied to the applicant in accordance with Article 6.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. In order to facilitate the process of determining the Member State responsible, the determining Member State shall conduct a personal interview with the applicant, unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant pursuant to Article 4(2) is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible. The interview shall also allow the proper understanding of the information supplied to the applicant in accordance with Article 6.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. In order to facilitate the process of determining the Member State responsible, the determining Member State shall conduct a personal interview with the applicant, unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant pursuant to Article 4(2) is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible. The interview shall also allow the proper understanding of the information supplied to the applicant in accordance with Article 6.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. In order to facilitate the process of determining the Member State responsible, the determining Member State shall conduct a personal interview with the applicant, unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant pursuant to Article 4(2) is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible and the applicant does not request to be heard. The interview shall also allow the proper understanding of the information supplied to the applicant in accordance with Article 6.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. In order to facilitate the process of determining the Member State responsible, the determining Member State shall conduct a personal interview with the applicant, unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant pursuant to Article 4(2) is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible. The interview shall also allow the proper understanding of the information supplied to the applicant in accordance with Article 6.
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The Member State may dispense with the personal interview where the information provided by the applicant pursuant to Article 4(2) is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible. The Member State dispensing with the interview shall give the applicant the opportunity to present all further information which is relevant for correctly determining the Member State responsible before a final decision is taken to transfer the applicant to the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 30(1). In the period between the final decision and the actual transfer to a designated Member State, Member States shall exceptionally take into consideration other elements provided by the applicant if the delay in submitting them is due to force majeure.
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The personal interview shall take place in a timely manner and, in any event, before any take charge request pursuant to Article 24 is madedecision on the substance is taken.
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Birgit SIPPEL
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The personal interview shall be conducted in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand and in which he or she is able to communicate. When the applicant is a minor, the personal interview shall be conducted in a child-friendly manner and with the presence of the guardian and, where applicable, the legal advisor or counsellor. Where necessary, Member States shall have recourse to an qualified interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person conducting the personal interview.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The personal interview shall be conducted in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand and in which he or she is and in which he or she is able to communicate. Interviews with minors shall be conducted in a child-friendly manner in the presence of the guardian and, where applicable, to communicatehe legal advisor or counsellor. Where necessary, Member States shall have recourse to an qualified interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person conducting the personal interview, and to an intercultural mediator.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The personal interview shall be conducted in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand and in which he or she is able to communicate. Interviews with minors shall be conducted in a child-friendly manner. Where necessary, Member States shall have recourse to an interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person conducting the personal interview.
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Jana ŽITŇANSKÁ, Alessandra MUSSOLINI, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The personal interview shall be conducted in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand and in which he or she is able to communicate and, when the applicant is a minor, in a child-friendly manner. Where necessary, Member States shall have recourse to an interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person conducting the personal interview.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The personal interview shall be conducted in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand and in which he or she is able to communicate. Where necessary, Member States shall have recourse to an interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person conducting the personal interview.
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Marju LAURISTIN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The person conducting the interview shall be competent to take account of the personal and general circumstances surrounding the application, including the applicant's cultural origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and vulnerability. Personnel interviewing applicants shall also have acquired general knowledge of problems which could adversely affect the applicant's ability to be interviewed, such as indications that the person may have been tortured in the past. The applicant may request to be interviewed and assisted by personnel of the same sex, provided that this is possible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. The personal interview shall take place under conditions which ensure appropriate confidentiality. It shall be conducted by a qualified person under national law. Applicants who are identified as being in need of special procedural guarantees should be provided with adequate support, including sufficient time, in order to create the conditions necessary for effectively presenting all elements that would allow for the determination of the Member State responsible.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. The personal interview shall take place under conditions which ensure appropriate confidentiality. It shall be conducted by a qualified person under national law. Children shall be interviewed in a child-friendly manner by appropriately trained and qualified person under national law and in the presence of the guardian and legal representative.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. The qualified person conducting the personal interview is obliged to notify the competent national authorities and the competent staff of Europol and the European Border and Coast Guard as soon as possible when he or she has reasonable grounds that the applicant is in any way at risk of being exploited by or is involved him- or herself in human trafficking activities, terrorist activities and organised crime networks;
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Alessandra MUSSOLINI, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State conducting the personal interview shall make a written summary thereof which shall contain at least the main information supplied by the applicant at the interview. The information provided in the summary shall be verified with the applicant and, where relevant, the guardian and/or legal advisor or counsellor, during the interview. This summary may either take the form of a report or a standard form. The Member State shall ensure that the applicant and/or the guardian, the legal advisor or other counsellor who is representing the applicant have timely access to the summary as soon as possible after the interview, and in any case before a transfer decision is taken.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN
5. The Member State conducting the personal interview shall make a written summary thereof which shall contain at least the main information supplied by the applicant at the interview. The information in the summary shall be verified with the applicant and, where relevant, the guardian and/or legal advisor or counsellor, during the interview. This summary may either take the form of a report or a standard form. The Member State shall ensure that the applicant and/ or the guardian, the legal advisor or other counsellor who is representing the applicant have timely access to the summary as soon as possible after the interview, and in any case before a transfer decision is taken.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State conducting the 5. personal interview shall make a written summary thereof which shall contain at least the main information supplied by the applicant at the interview. This summary may either take the form of a report or a standard forme information included in the summary shall be verified by the applicant, where appropriate with the assistance of an interpreter, and, where relevant, by the guardian and/or legal representative during the interview. This summary shall take the form of a report. The Member State shall ensure that the applicant and/or the legal advisor or other counsellor who is representing the applicant have timely access to the summary.
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State conducting the personal interview shall make a written summary thereof which shall contain at least the main information supplied by the applicant at the interview. The information in the summary shall be verified with the applicant and, where relevant, the guardian and/or legal advisor or counsellor, during the interview. This summary may either take the form of a report or a standard form. The Member State shall ensure that the applicant and/or the legal advisor or other counsellor who is representing the applicant have timely access to the summary.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State conducting the personal interview shall make a written summary thereof which shall contain at least the main information supplied by the applicant at the interview. This summary may either take the form of a report or a standard formrecord it in full using audiovisual equipment. The Member State shall ensure that the applicant and/or the legal advisor or other counsellor who is representing the applicant have timely access to the summaryaudiovisual recording.
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Where requested by the applicant, the determining authority shall ensure that the interviewers and interpreters are of the same sex as the applicant provided that this is possible and the determining authority does not have reasons to believe that such a request is based on grounds which are not related to difficulties on the part of the applicant to present the grounds of his or her application in a comprehensive manner.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The best interests of the child shall be athe primary consideration for Member States with respect to all procedures provided for in this Regulation.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
1. The best interests of the child shall be athe primary consideration for Member States with respect to all procedures provided for in this Regulation.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Each Member State where an unaccompanied minor is obliged to be present shall ensure that a representativeguardian represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the relevant procedures provided for in this Regulation. The representativeguardian shall have the qualifications and, expertise and independence to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration during the procedures carried out under this Regulation. Such representative, and the guardian must have received appropriate training in this area. Such a guardian shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the applicant’s file including the specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors. Through implementing measures, the Commission shall lay down the requirements and procedures for the training of guardians.
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Alessandra MUSSOLINI, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Each Member State where an unaccompanied minor is obliged to be present shall ensure that a representativeguardian represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the relevantall procedures provided for in this Regulation. The representativeguardian shall have the qualifications and, expertise and independence to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration during the procedures carried out under this Regulation. Such representativea guardian shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the applicant’'s file including the specific leaflet for unaccompanied minorsinformation materials for unaccompanied minors. The guardian shall be appointed no later than five days from the moment when an unaccompanied minor arrives in the Member State.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Each Member State where an unaccompanied minor is obliged to be present shall ensure that a representativeguardian represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the relevantall procedures provided for in this Regulation. The representativeguardian shall have the qualifications and, expertise and independence to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration during the procedures carried out under this Regulation. Such representativea guardian shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the applicant’'s file including the specific leafletinformation materials for unaccompanied minors. The guardian shall be appointed as soon as possible, but at the latest within five days from the making of the application.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Each Member State where an unaccompanied minor is obliged to be present shall ensure that a representativeguardian represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the relevantall procedures provided for in this Regulation. The representativeguardian shall have the qualifications and, expertise and independence to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration during the procedures carried out under this Regulation. Such representativea guardian shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the applicant’s file including the specific leafletinformation material for unaccompanied minors. The guardian shall be appointed as soon as possible but at the latest within 5 days from the date of arrival.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Each Member State where an unaccompanied minor is obliged to be present shall ensure that a representativeguardian represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the relevant procedures provided for in this Regulation. The representativeguardian shall have the independence, qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minorchild are taken into consideration during the procedures carried out under this Regulation. Such representativeguardian shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the applicant’s file including the specific leafletinformation material for unaccompanied minors. Guardians shall receive regular training to undertake their tasks.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The guardian shall be involved in the process of establishing Member State responsibility under this Regulation to the greatest extent possible. To that end, the guardian shall support the minor to provide information relevant to the assessment of their best interests in accordance with paragraph 3, including exercise their right to be heard, and shall support the minor's engagement with other actors, such as family tracing organisations, where appropriate for this purpose, and with due regard to confidentiality obligations to the child. Such a guardian shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the minor's file including the specific information material for unaccompanied minors and the forms provided for in Article 6. The guardian shall ensure the minor has access to information, legal advice and representation concerning the procedures under this Regulation and shall keep the minor informed on the progress in the procedures under this Regulation concerning him or her. Guardians shall receive regular training and support to undertake their tasks. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, provide rules on the qualifications of and training for guardians, the modalities for their engagement with other actors, with due regard for confidentiality and data protection obligations.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The guardian shall be involved in the process of establishing Member State responsibility under this Regulation to the greatest extent possible. To that end, the guardian shall support the minor to provide information relevant to the assessment of their best interests in accordance with paragraph 3, including exercise their right to be heard, and shall support the minor's engagement with other actors, such as family tracing organisations, where appropriate for this purpose, and with due regard to confidentiality obligations to the child. Such a guardian shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the minor's file including the specific leaflets for unaccompanied minors and the forms provided for in Article 8. The guardian shall ensure the minor has access to information, legal advice and representation concerning the procedures under this Regulation and shall keep the minor informed on the status of the procedures under this Regulation concerning them. Guardians shall receive regular training and support to undertake their tasks. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, provide rules on the qualifications of and training for guardians, the modalities for their engagement with other actors, with due regard for confidentiality and data protection obligations.
The guardian shall be involved in the process of establishing Member State responsibility under this Regulation to the greatest extent possible. To that end, the guardian shall support the minor to provide information relevant to the assessment of their best interests in accordance with paragraph 3, including exercising their right to be heard, and shall support the minor's engagement with other actors, such as family tracing organisations, where appropriate for this purpose, and with due regard to confidentiality obligations to the child.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the minor’s well-being and social development, taking into particular consideration his or her ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background and the need for stability and continuity in the minor's care and custodial arrangements and access to health and education services;
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the minor’s well-being and social development, taking into particular consideration his or her ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background and the need for stability and continuity in the minor's care and custodial arrangements and access to health and education services;
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) safety and security considerations, in particular where there is a risk of the minor being a victim of any kind of human trafficking, organized crime or exploitation e.g. organ trade, forced beggary or prostitution; if the qualified person conducting the personal interview has reasonable grounds that the minor is in any way at risk of being exploited by human traffickers, terrorist organizations or organized crime networks, he or she be obliged to notify the competent national authorities and the competent staff of Europol and the European Border and Coast Guard as soon as possible and accommodate the minor in a special reception centre;
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Jana ŽITŇANSKÁ, Alessandra MUSSOLINI, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) safety and security considerations, in particular where there is a risk of the minor being a victim of human traffickingany form of violence and exploitation, including trafficking in human beings;
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) safety and security considerations, in particular where there is a risk of the minor being a victim of human traffickingany form of violence and exploitation, including trafficking in human beings;
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Jana ŽITŇANSKÁ, Alessandra MUSSOLINI, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c a (new)
(ca) situations of vulnerability, including trauma, specific health needs and disability
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c a (new)
(ca) the guarantee of a handover to a designated guardian in the receiving Member State;
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c b (new)
(cb) the information provided by the guardian in the Member State where the minor is present.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c c (new)
(cc) situations of vulnerability, including abuse, trauma, specific health needs and disability.
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Alessandra MUSSOLINI, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point d – point i (new)
i) the need for decisions concerning children to be treated with priority
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. situations of vulnerability, including abuse, trauma, specific health needs and disability;
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. the need for decisions concerning children to be treated with priority;
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to the Member State responsible or, where applicable, to the Member State of allocationAny decision on the Member State responsible or, where applicable, on the Member State of allocation concerning an unaccompanied minor shall be preceded by a multidisciplinary assessment of his/her best interests. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3 and the conclusions of the assessment on each of the factors shall be clearly stated in the decision on responsibility. The multidisciplinary assessment shall involve competent staff with expertise in child rights, psychology and development and shall involve, at a minimum, the minor's guardian and legal advisor or counsellor. Before any transfer of an unaccompanied minor takes place, the transferring Member State shall make sureobtain individual guarantees that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor to another Member State shall be preceded by an assessment of his/ or her best interests. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3. The assessment shall be done swiftly by staff with the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration, carried out by the competent judicial or administrative authority according to the national law of the Member State.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Marju LAURISTIN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor toAny decision on the Member State responsible or, where applicable, ton the Member State of allocation, the transf concerrning Member State shall make sure that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures refean unaccompanied minor shall be preceded by a multidisciplinary assessment of his/her best interests, carried to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor shall be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3. The assessment shall be done swiftly by staff with the qualifications and expertise to enout by the competent judicial or administrative authorities according to the national law of the Member State. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3 and the conclusions of the assessment on each of the factors shall be clearly stated in the decision on responsibility. The multidisciplinary assessment shall involve competent staff with expertise in child rights, psychology and development and shall involve, at a minimum, the minor's guardian and legal advisor or counsellor. Before any transfer of an unaccompanied minor, the transferring Member State shall make sure that the best inMember State restsponsible ofr the minor are taken into considerationMember State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay.
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Barbara MATERA, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor toAny decision on the Member State responsible or, where applicable, to the Member State of allocation, the transferring Member State shall make sure that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay. Any decision to transferon the Member State of allocation concerning an unaccompanied minor shall be preceded by an multidisciplinary assessment of his/her best interests. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3. The and the conclusions of the assessment on each of the factors shall be clearly stated in the decision on responsibility. The multidisciplinary assessment shall be done swiftly by competent staff with the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into considerationexpertise in child rights, psychology and development involving the minor's guardian and legal advisor or counsellor to ensure that the best interests of the minor are respected. Before any transfer of an unaccompanied minor, the transferring Member State shall make sure that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Before transferring an 4. unaccompanied minor toAny decision on the determination of the Member State responsible or, where applicable, to the Member State of allocation, the transferring Member State shall make sure that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor shall be preceded by an assessment of his/her shall be preceded by an assessment of the minor’s best interests. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3. The assessment shall be done swiftly by staff with the qualifications and expertise in child rights to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into considerationchild are taken into consideration, it shall involve at least the guardian and legal advisor or counsellor and the child's right to be heard must be guaranteed. The transferring Member States shall obtain individual guarantees that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to the Member State responsible or, where applicable, to the Member State of allocation, the transferring Member State shall make sure that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor shall be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3. The assessment shall be done swiftly by staff with the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to the Member State responsible or, where applicable, to the Member State of allocation, the transferring Member State shall make sure that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor shall be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3. The assessment shall be done swiftly by staff with the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to the Member State responsible or, where applicable, to the Member State of allocation, the transferring Member State shall make sure that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor shall be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3. The assessment shall be done swiftly by staff with the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minorchild are taken into consideration.
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Hilde VAUTMANS, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Barbara MATERA, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph new5 – subparagraph 1
For the purpose of applying Articles 10 and 19, the Member State where the unaccompanied minor lodgedmade an application for international protection shall, as soon as possible, take appropriate action to identify the family members or, relatives or any other family relativeons of the unaccompanied minor on the territory of Member States, whilst protecting the best interests of the child, when relevant with the assistance of international or other relevant organisation to facilitate the minor's access to the tracing services of such organisations. The staff of the competent authorities referred to in Article 47 who deal with requests concerning unaccompanied minors shall have received, and shall continue to receive, appropriate training concerning the specific needs of minors, including training on child rights, psychology and development.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph new5 – subparagraph 1
For the purpose of applying Articles 10 and 19, the Member State where the unaccompanied minor lodgedmade an application for international protection shall, as soon as possible, take appropriate action to identify the family members or, relatives or any other family relativeons of the unaccompanied minor on the territory of Member States, whilst protecting the best interests of the child.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph new5 – subparagraph 1
For the purpose of applying Article 10 and 19, the Member State where the unaccompanied minor lodgregistered an application for international protection shall, as soon as possible, take appropriate action to identify the family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor on the territory of Member States, whilst protecting the best interests of the child.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph new5 – subparagraph 1
For the purpose of applying Article 10, the Member State where the unaccompanied minor lodged an application for international protection shall, as soon as possible, take appropriate action to identify the family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor on the territory of Member States, whilst protecting the best interests of the child.
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Jana ŽITŇANSKÁ, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Barbara MATERA, Hilde VAUTMANS
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph new5 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Before the transfer of an unaccompanied minor the authorities shall ensure the appointment of a guardian in the receiving Member State. The authorities shall communicate the information regarding the guardian appointed by the receiving Member State to the current guardian together with the modalities for the transfer. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, provide rules concerning the modalities for the transfer of guardianship.
Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Marju LAURISTIN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph new5 – subparagraph 3
The staff of the competent authorities referred to in Article 47 who deal with requests concerning unaccompanied minors shall have received, and shall continue to receive, appropriate training concerning the specific needs of minors, including training on child rights, psychology and development.
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 6
6The Commission shall, by means of a delegated act lay down in accordance with this Article the rules and procedures with regards to the assessment of the best interests of the child for the purposes of this Regulation. With a view to facilitating the 6. appropriate action to identify the family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor living in the territory of another Member State pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Article, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts including a standard form for the exchange of relevant information between Member Statesstandard operating procedures for transnational cooperation between Member States regarding the assessment of the best interests of the child, family tracing and the identification of family members, siblings, relatives or any other family relations of an unaccompanied minor for the purposes of this Regulation and for assessing the capacity of a relative to take care of an unaccompanied minor as well as a standard form for the exchange of relevant information between Member States. The standard operating procedures for the assessment of the best interests of the minor for the purposes of this Regulation shall include provisions concerning information to be provided to children, information relevant to the assessment of the best interests of the child and ways of information gathering and evaluation and provide for the use of a standard form to document the assessment. They shall provide for the use of a form that records the steps undertaken and results of information gathering and to support any necessary cooperation between Member States for that purpose. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission shall, by means of a delegated act in accordance with this Article lay down the rules and procedures with regards to the transnational cooperation for the assessment of the best interests of the child. With a view to facilitating the appropriate action to identify the family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor living in the territory of another Member State pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Article, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts including a standard form for the exchange of relevant information between Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 6
6. With a view to facilitating the appropriate action to identify the family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor living in the territory of another Member State pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Article, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts including a standard form for the exchange of relevant information between Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).
2017/05/05
LIBE
250 amendments...
Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 2
By way of derogation from Article 34(2), during the first three months after entry into force of this Regulation, the corrective allocation mechanism shall not be triggered. By way of derogation from Article 34(3), after the expiry of the three month period following the entry into force of this Regulation and until the expiry of one year following the entry into force of this Regulation, the reference period shall be the period which has elapsed since the entry into force of this Regulation.deleted
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 2
By way of derogation from Article 34(2), during the first three months after entry into force of this Regulation, the corrective allocation mechanism shall not be triggered. By way of derogation from Article 34(3), after the expiry of the three month period following3), after the entry into force of this Regulation and until the expiry of one year following the entry into force of this Regulation, the reference period shall be the period which has elapsed since the entry into force of this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 2
By way of derogation from Article 34(2), during the first three months after entry into force of this Regulation, the corrective allocation mechanism shall not be triggered. By way of derogation from Article 34(3), after the expiry of the three month period following the entry into force of this Regulation and until the expiry of one year following the entry into force of this Regulation, the reference period shall be the period which has elapsed since the entry into force of this Regulationlast 24 months.
Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 2 a (new)
By way of derogation from Article 35 the reference key for the corrective allocation shall be calculated using the formula in Annex Ia during the first three years following the entry into force of this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 2
2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 10(68(6), 10(6), 18(3) and 18a(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the 5- year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 3
3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 10(68(6), 10(6), 18(3) and 18a(3) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph new6
new6. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 10(68(6), 10(6), 18(3) and 18a(3) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 1
By [18 months after entry into force] and from then on annually, the Commission shall review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation and in particular the thresholds set out in Article 34(2) and Article 43 thereof.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 1
By [18 months after entry into force] and from then on annually, the Commission shall review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation and in particular the thresholds set out in Article 34(2) and Article 43 thereof.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 1
By [18 months after entry into force] and from then on annually, the Commission shall review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation and in particular the thresholds set out in Article 34(2) and Article 43 thereof.
Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
The European Union Agency for Asylum, in consultation with appropriate expert bodies and organisations, shall conduct a qualitative and quantitative stocktaking of the capacity for the reception of unaccompanied minors in all Member States during the transitional period referred to in Article 53(2a) in order to identify deficiencies and offer assistance to Member States in order to address those deficiencies.
Artis PABRIKS, Traian UNGUREANU, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 2
2. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall publish at quarterly intervals the information transmitted pursuant to Article 34(4). newdeleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 1
Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 is repealed for the Member States bound by this Regulation as concerns their obligations in their relations between themselves.
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Annex I
Formula for the reference key pursuant to Article 35 of the Regulation: Population effectMS27 GDP effectMS28 ShareMS = 50% Population effectMS + 50% GDP effectMS _________________ 27For three Member States, participation depends on the exercise of rights as set out in the relevant Protocols and other instruments. 28For three Member States, participation depends on the exercise of rights as set out in the relevant Protocols and other instruments.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Annex I – paragraph 2 a (new)
GDP growth rate effectMS28a _________________ 28aFor three Member States, participation depends on the exercise of rights as set out in the relevant Protocols and other instruments.
Proposal for a regulation Annex I – paragraph 2 a (new)
Unemployment rate effectMS
Proposal for a regulation Annex I – paragraph 2 b (new)
Unemployment rate effectMS = 1/average unemployment rate during the preceding 12 months28b _________________ 28bFor three Member States, participation depends on the exercise of rights as set out in the relevant Protocols and other instruments.
Proposal for a regulation Annex I – paragraph 2 b (new)
Percentage of expenditure linked to migration when compared to the overall GDP effectMS
Proposal for a regulation Annex I – paragraph 2 c (new)
Number of beneficiaries of international protection present in the territory effectMS
Proposal for a regulation Annex I – paragraph 3
ShareMS = 50% Population effectMS + 50% GDP effectMS + Unemployment rate effectMS + Percentage of expenditure linked to migration when compared to the overall GDP effectMS + Number of beneficiaries of international protection present in the territory effectMS
Proposal for a regulation Annex I – paragraph 3
ShareMS = 250% Population effectMS + 250% GDP effectMS + 25% GDP growth rate effectMS + 25% unemployment rate effectMS
Proposal for a regulation Annex I a (new)
Transitional arrangements for the calculation of the reference key in Article 35. 1. For the purpose of the corrective allocation mechanism, the reference number for each Member State shall, during a transitional period as defined in this Annex, be determined by a combination of a baseline key and the reference key referred to in Article 35. 2. The baseline reference key referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated by adding the lodged applications, using Eurostat figures, in Member States for the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2016, divided by the total amount of lodged applications within all Member States during that period. 3. The transitional reference key shall be calculated as follows a) from the entry into force until the end of the first calendar year following the entry into force ('year X') the transitional reference key should be the same as the baseline reference key b) in year X+1 the transitional reference key should be composed of 80% of the baseline reference key and 20% of the reference key in Article 35 of this regulation c) in year X+2 the transitional reference key should be composed of 50% of the baseline reference key and 50% of the reference key in Article 35 of this regulation 4. Following the expiration of the period mentioned in point (c) of paragraph 3 the reference key shall be calculated according to the provisions of Article 35.
Proposal for a regulation Chapter 7 – title
Corrective allocation mechanism
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Chapter 7 – title
Corrective aAllocation mechanism
Proposal for a regulation Article 34
1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation. 2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 150% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35. 3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applications as well as the total number of resettled persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 12 months. 4. The automated system shall inform Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum once per week of the Member States' respective shares in applications for which they are the Member State responsible. 5. The automated system shall continuously monitor whether any of the Member States is above the threshold referred to in paragraph 2, and if so, notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold. 6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocation mechanism shall apply.Article 34 deleted General Principle
Proposal for a regulation Article 34
1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation. 2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 150% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35. 3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applications as well as the total number of resettled persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 12 months. 4. The automated system shall inform Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum once per week of the Member States' respective shares in applications for which they are the Member State responsible. 5. The automated system shall continuously monitor whether any of the Member States is above the threshold referred to in paragraph 2, and if so, notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold. 6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocation mechanism shall apply.Article 34 deleted General Principle
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, József NAGY, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 34
1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation. 2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 150% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35. 3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applications as well as the total number of resettled persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 12 months. 4. The automated system shall inform Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum once per week of the Member States' respective shares in applications for which they are the Member State responsible. 5. The automated system shall continuously monitor whether any of the Member States is above the threshold referred to in paragraph 2, and if so, notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold. 6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocation mechanism shall apply.Article 34 deleted General Principle
Proposal for a regulation Article 34
1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation. 2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 150% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35. 3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applications as well as the total number of resettled persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 12 months. 4. The automated system shall inform Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum once per week of the Member States' respective shares in applications for which they are the Member State responsible. 5. The automated system shall continuously monitor whether any of the Member States is above the threshold referred to in paragraph 2, and if so, notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold. 6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocation mechanism shall apply.Article 34 deleted General Principle
Proposal for a regulation Article 34
1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation. 2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 150% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35. 3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applications as well as the total number of resettled persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 12 months. 4. The automated system shall inform Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum once per week of the Member States' respective shares in applications for which they are the Member State responsible. 5. The automated system shall continuously monitor whether any of the Member States is above the threshold referred to in paragraph 2, and if so, notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold. 6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocation mechanism shall apply.Article 34 deleted General Principle
Proposal for a regulation Article 34
1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation. 2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 150 % of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35. 3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applications as well as the total number of resettled persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 12 months. 4. The automated system shall inform Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum once per week of the Member States' respective shares in applications for which they are the Member State responsible. 5. The automated system shall continuously monitor whether any of the Member States is above the threshold referred to in paragraph 2, and if so, notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold. 6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocation mechanism shall apply.Article 34 deleted General Principle
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit ofall the applications for which a Member Sstate, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation responsible could not be determined according to the criteria set out in Chapter III and IV of this Regulation, and also in the cases in which Article 24a applies.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. The allocationcorrective mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionateresponsible for a number of applications for international protection founder wthich it is the Member State responsible under this Regulations Regulation that is higher than the reference number for that Member State.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number ofan applicant is present, in which he or she has submitted an applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulationand who has no family ties in any EU Member State.
Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, József NAGY, Artis PABRIKS, Pál CSÁKY, Kinga GÁL, Pavel POC, Miroslav POCHE, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Andrea BOCSKOR, Vladimír MAŇKA, Monika SMOLKOVÁ, Jan KELLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied voluntarily for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. The voluntary allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. The voluntary allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. During the application of the mechanism in accordance with paragraph 1, the benefitting Member State shall be relieved of its obligations under Article 20. The determining Member State shall continue to examine the criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether another Member State can be designated as responsible.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 150% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.deleted
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 150% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the keyautomatically on the basis of the automated system referred to in Article 3544(1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 150% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 15075% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 15075% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 1580% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 1580% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 15085% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettlalready beneficiary of international protection, resettled and relocated, is higher than 1500% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 1500% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 1520% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where a Member State is located at external land or sea borders on the Western Mediterranean, Central Mediterranean and Eastern Mediterranean routes this Member State should be exempted from obligations of taking responsibility for allocated applications under the corrective mechanism from any other Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Paragraph 1 does not apply to applicants falling under the cases referred to in Articles 10-14ANEW and 18ANEW.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 3
3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined immediately after all Member States have entered the data referred to in Article 34 a by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applicationrrivals as well as the total number of resettled persons that have beenand updated annually on the basis of data entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 12 months.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 3
3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applications as well as the total number of resettled persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 12 months. The number of persons effectively resettled to a Member State shall be deducted from the number of applications for which a Member State is responsible according to the reference key.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 3
3. The reference number of a Member State shall beMember States participating in the voluntary allocation mechanism shall pledge a number of places for allocation with reference to, but not determined by, the reference number that is determined by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applications as well as the total number of resettled persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 12 months.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 3
3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applications as well as the total number of resettled persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 1236 months.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 3
3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applications as well as the total number of resettled persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 124 months.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 4
4. The automated system shall inform Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum once per weekyear of the Member States' respective shares in applications for which they are the Member State responsible.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 5
5. The automated system shall continuously monitor whether any of the Member States is above the threshold referred to in paragraph 2, and if so, notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold.deleted
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Birgit SIPPEL, Miriam DALLI, Dietmar KÖSTER, Marju LAURISTIN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 5
5. The automated system shall continuously monitor whether any of the Member States is above the threthe number of applications for which a Member State is responsible, to which the number of people effectively resettled to that Member State should referred to in paragraph 2, and if so, notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold. be added, and check whether for any of the Member States this number is higher than the respective reference number. If so, the automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold. No further allocation should be made towards these Member States until the number of applications for which they are responsible (including resettled persons) is below their reference number.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 6
6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocation mechanism shall apply.deleted
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 6
6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocation mechanism shall apply.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 6
6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocationcorrective mechanism shall apply.
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 a (new)
Article 34 a Upon first use of the system Member States should enter, at the latest by the end of the transitional period referred to in Article 53, their current total number of applicants, as well as third-country nationals or stateless persons who have irregularly entered the territory of a Member State and have not made an application for international protection. Subsequently Member States shall enter the total number of irregular arrivals on a continuous basis.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Dario TAMBURRANO
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 a (new)
Article 34 a Family reunification procedure 1. Where the applicant states that he or she has family links in one of the Member States, the Member State which has received the application for international protection shall, within 30 days of the registration of the application for international protection, carry out a check on the information provided by the applicant, before applying the allocation mechanism referred to in Article 34(1). 2. If, on the basis of that check, the applicant’s statements prove to be well- founded, the relevant Member State shall transfer the applicant to the Member State in which he or she has declared he or she has family links. 3. If the Member State to which the applicant is transferred ascertains that the applicant has made false declarations, that Member State shall apply the allocation mechanism referred to in Article 34(1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 35
1. For the purpose of the corrective mechanism, the reference number for each Member State shall be determined by a key. 2. The reference key referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the following criteria for each Member State, according to Eurostat figures: (a) the size of the population (50 % weighting); (b) the total GDP (50% weighting); 3. The criteria referred to in paragraph 2 shall be applied by the formula as set out in Annex I. 4. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall establish the reference key and adapt the figures of the criteria for the reference key as well as the reference key referred to in paragraph 2 annually, based on Eurostat figures.Article 35 deleted Reference key
Proposal for a regulation Article 35
1. For the purpose of the corrective mechanism, the reference number for each Member State shall be determined by a key. 2. The reference key referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the following criteria for each Member State, according to Eurostat figures: (a) the size of the population (50 % weighting); (b) the total GDP (50% weighting); 3. The criteria referred to in paragraph 2 shall be applied by the formula as set out in Annex I. 4. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall establish the reference key and adapt the figures of the criteria for the reference key as well as the reference key referred to in paragraph 2 annually, based on Eurostat figures.Article 35 deleted Reference key
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, József NAGY, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 35
1. For the purpose of the corrective mechanism, the reference number for each Member State shall be determined by a key. 2. The reference key referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the following criteria for each Member State, according to Eurostat figures: (a) the size of the population (50 % weighting); (b) the total GDP (50% weighting); 3. The criteria referred to in paragraph 2 shall be applied by the formula as set out in Annex I. 4. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall establish the reference key and adapt the figures of the criteria for the reference key as well as the reference key referred to in paragraph 2 annually, based on Eurostat figures.Article 35 deleted Reference key
Proposal for a regulation Article 35
1. For the purpose of the corrective mechanism, the reference number for each Member State shall be determined by a key. 2. The reference key referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the following criteria for each Member State, according to Eurostat figures: (a) the size of the population (50% weighting); (b) the total GDP (50% weighting); 3. The criteria referred to in paragraph 2 shall be applied by the formula as set out in Annex I. 4. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall establish the reference key and adapt the figures of the criteria for the reference key as well as the reference key referred to in paragraph 2 annually, based on Eurostat figures.Article 35 deleted Reference key
Proposal for a regulation Article 35
1. For the purpose of the corrective mechanism, the reference number for each Member State shall be determined by a key. 2. The reference key referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the following criteria for each Member State, according to Eurostat figures: (a) the size of the population (50 % weighting); (b) the total GDP (50% weighting); 3. The criteria referred to in paragraph 2 shall be applied by the formula as set out in Annex I. 4. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall establish the reference key and adapt the figures of the criteria for the reference key as well as the reference key referred to in paragraph 2 annually, based on Eurostat figures.Article 35 deleted Reference key
Proposal for a regulation Article 35
1. For the purpose of the corrective mechanism, the reference number for each Member State shall be determined by a key. 2. The reference key referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the following criteria for each Member State, according to Eurostat figures: (a) the size of the population (50 % weighting); (b) the total GDP (50 % weighting); 3. The criteria referred to in paragraph 2 shall be applied by the formula as set out in Annex I. 4. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall establish the reference key and adapt the figures of the criteria for the reference key as well as the reference key referred to in paragraph 2 annually, based on Eurostat figures.Article 35 deleted Reference key
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 1
1. For the purpose of the corrective mechanism, thea non-binding reference number for each Member State shall be determined by a key.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Dietmar KÖSTER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 1
1. For the purpose of the correctiveallocation mechanism, the reference number for each Member State shall be determined by a key.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 1
1. For the purpose of the correctiveallocation mechanism, the reference number for each Member State shall be determined by a key.
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The reference key referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the following criteria for each Member State, according to Eurostat figures:
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the size of the active population (250 % weighting);
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the size of the population (540 % weighting);
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the size of the population (50 % weighting);
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the total GDP (250% weighting);
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the total GDP (250% weighting);
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the total GDP (540% weighting);
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the total GDP (50% weighting);
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) the number of beneficiaries of internal protection, persons resettled from third countries and persons received in the framework of EU relocation programmes.
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) 2. (c) the number of asylum applications in the last 3 years (25% weighting)
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) number of migrants already living in the Member State;
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) the unemployment rate
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) the unemployment rate
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) the unemployment rate
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) the unemployment rate
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) unemployment rate (20 %)
(bb) the average unemployment rate during the preceding 12 months (25% weighting)
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
(bb) the percentage of expenditure linked to migration when compared to the overall GDP
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) GDP growth rate during the preceding 12 months (25% weighting)
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
(bb) integration capacity of the Member State;
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b c (new)
(bc) the number of beneficiaries of international protection who are present in the territory of the Member State
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
The reference key shall be corrected by reducing the share for the following year by 20% of the difference between the share based on GDP and population and the average number of irregular arrivals recorded by the Member State over the last three years, for countries which in the last three years have received an average share of irregular arrivals higher than that determined on the basis of (a) and (b).
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The reference number for a Member State shall take into account the number of persons already granted international protection in the Member State and the resources and expertise pledged and delivered by the Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 3
3. The criteria referred to in paragraph 2 shall be applied by the formula as set out in Annex I., taking into account additionally the first entry position of the frontline Member States
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 36
1. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall apply the reference key referred to in Article 35 to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1) and notify the Member States thereof. 2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefitting Member State after notification of allocation referred to in Article 34(5) shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine the Member State responsible; 3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation. 4. On the basis of the application of the reference key pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the Member State of allocation and communicate this information not later than 72 hours after the registration referred to in Article 22(1) to the benefitting Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2).Article 36 deleted Application of the reference key
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, József NAGY, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 36
Application of the reference key 1. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall apply the reference key referred to in Article 35 to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1) and notify the Member States thereof. 2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefitting Member State after notification of allocation referred to in Article 34(5) shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine the Member State responsible; 3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation. 4. On the basis of the application of the reference key pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the Member State of allocation and communicate this information not later than 72 hours after the registration referred to in Article 22(1) to the benefitting Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2).rticle 36 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 36
1. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall apply the reference key referred to in Article 35 to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1) and notify the Member States thereof. 2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefitting Member State after notification of allocation referred to in Article 34(5) shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine the Member State responsible; 3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation. 4. On the basis of the application of the reference key pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the Member State of allocation and communicate this information not later than 72 hours after the registration referred to in Article 22(1) to the benefitting Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2).Article 36 deleted Application of the reference key
Proposal for a regulation Article 36
Application of the reference key 1. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall apply the reference key referred to in Article 35 to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1) and notify the Member States thereof. 2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefitting Member State after notification of allocation referred to in Article 34(5) shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine the Member State responsible; 3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation. 4. On the basis of the application of the reference key pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the Member State of allocation and communicate this information not later than 72 hours after the registration referred to in Article 22(1) to the benefitting Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2).rticle 36 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 36
1. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall apply the reference key referred to in Article 35 to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1) and notify the Member States thereof. 2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefitting Member State after notification of allocation referred to in Article 34(5) shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine the Member State responsible. 3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation. 4. On the basis of the application of the reference key pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the Member State of allocation and communicate this information not later than 72 hours after the registration referred to in Article 22(1) to the benefitting Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2).Article 36 deleted Application of the reference key
Proposal for a regulation Article 36
Application of the reference key 1. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall apply the reference key referred to in Article 35 to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1) and notify the Member States thereof. 2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefitting Member State after notification of allocation referred to in Article 34(5) shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine the Member State responsible; 3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation. 4. On the basis of the application of the reference key pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the Member State of allocation and communicate this information not later than 72 hours after the registration referred to in Article 22(1) to the benefitting Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2).rticle 36 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 36
1. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall apply the reference key referred to in Article 35 to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1) and notify the Member States thereof. 2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefiting Member State after notification of allocation referred to in Article 34(5) shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine the Member State responsible; 3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation. 4. On the basis of the application of the reference key pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the Member State of allocation and communicate this information not later than 72 hours after the registration referred to in Article 22(1) to the benefiting Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2).Article 36 deleted Application of the reference key
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 1
1. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall apply the reference key referred to in Article 35 to those Member States with a number of applications for which they arttribution of competences under Articles 10a and 14a shall be adjusted in the following terms: - if more Member States would be responsible under Article 10a or 14a, applicants shall be able to choose the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1) and notify the Member States thereof. - if there is not another Member State that could be responsible under Article 10a or 14a, the responsible Member State shall be awarded a financial contribution under Article 37.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 1
1. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, tThe automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall apply the reference key referred to in Article 35 to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1) and notify the Member States thereof.
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 2
2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefitting Member State after notification of allocation referred to inWhere the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the attribution of competence under Article 34(5)11a shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine the Member State responsible;djusted in the following terms: - if more Member States would be responsible under Article 11a, the one which is under its share shall become the competent State; - if there is not another Member State that could be responsible under Article 11a, the responsible Member State shall be awarded a financial contribution under Article 37.
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 2
2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefitting Member State after notification of allocation referred to in Article 34(5) shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine thewhich becomes the Member State responsible unless according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 14 and 18 a different Member State is responsible; for examining the application.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 2
2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefitting Member State after notification of allocation referred to in Article 34(5) shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine the Member State responsiblebecome responsible for examining the application for international protection.
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the attribution of competence under Article 12a shall be adjusted in the following terms: - if the minor expressed the desire to be allocated to another Member State which is under its share and this is not against his/her best interest, this State becomes the competent State; - if the minor does not express any preference, the State competent under Article 12a shall be awarded a financial contribution under Article 37.
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. 3. The examination of the criteria in Articles 10 to 14 and 18 may be conducted in the Member State benefitting from allocation in case there are clear indications that another Member State than the Member State of allocation is responsible for examining the application.
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the attribution of competence under Article 14a shall be adjusted in the following terms: - if more Member States would be responsible under Article 14a, applicants shall be able to choose the Member State responsible among Member States who are under their share; - if there is not another competent State under Article 14, the designed one shall receive a financial contribution under Article 37. Nevertheless, the responsible Member State may refuse to assume competence if the number of applications for international protection for which such Member State is responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 10, 11 and 13 exceeds or has already exceeded 50% of the assigned share.
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Where according to 36(2b) the benefiting State refuses to assume competence, and no other Member State could be responsible or accepts responsibility under Article 19 (2a), Article 16 shall apply.
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 3
3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 3
3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation.deleted
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 3
3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation.
4. On the basis of the application of the reference key pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the Member State of allocation and communicate this information not later than 72 hours after the registration referred to in Article 22(1) to the benefitting Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2).deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 4
4. On the basis of the application of the reference key pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate three Member States of possible allocation and promptly communicate this information to the applicant, who will be entitled to choose one responsible Member State among the three possible options as indicated by the automated system. The applicant shall have the possibility to express his or her preference not later than three working days after the notification of this information. Shall the applicant fail to communicate his or her preference within three working days from the notification of the possible Member States of allocation, the automated system shall indicate the final responsible Member State and communicate this information not later than 72 hours after the registration referred to in Article 22(1) to the benefitting Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2).
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Dietmar KÖSTER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 a (new)
Article 36 a Application of the allocation mechanism 1. When it was not possible to determine a Member State responsible according to the criteria set out in Chapters III and IV of this regulation, the determining Member State shall communicate to the applicant that he will be allocated. 2. If the applicant has meaningful links with a Member State, the determining Member State should follow the procedure laid down in Article 36b. 3. When the procedure laid down in Article 36b does not apply, the determining Member State should follow the procedure of Article 36c.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 a (new)
Article 36 a Determination of the Member State of allocation 1. On the basis of the reference key referred to in Article 35, the automatic system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the Member State of allocation responsible for examining the application for international protection, taking into account the following criteria: (a) Member States which have received the lowest number of applications for international protection; (b) Applicant’s skills, including spoken language skills; (c) Applicant’s cultural and social ties.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Dietmar KÖSTER, Marju LAURISTIN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 b (new)
Article 36 b Meaningful links 1. In the framework of the allocation mechanism, and with a view to facilitate integration of the applicants into the Member States of allocation, their existing ties, needs, preferences and specific qualification should be taken into account to the extent possible. 2. An applicant for international protection has a meaningful link with a Member State under at least one of these conditions: a) the applicant has previously resided in the Member State on the basis of a valid residence document, for a period of at least one year, for work, study or research purposes; b) the applicant holds academic or professional qualifications or diplomas released by the Member State, or by a third country in the framework of programs of international cooperation in the field of education or training that were managed, promoted or financed by the Member State, including but not limited to bilateral agreements on mutual recognition of diplomas or qualifications; c) the applicant has a previous work experience with a company or an organisation of the Member State; d) relatives or other family ties beyond the definition of family members under Article 2(g) of the applicant who are legally residing in the Member State for a period of at least one year; e) the applicant holds a satisfactory knowledge of one of the official languages of a Member State, to be ascertained through certificates or a linguistic test; 3. When an applicant can demonstrate a meaningful link with a Member State, the determining Member State should make a take charge request to that Member State. That Member State should reply within two weeks, duly motivating in case of rejection. If the Member States accepts to take charge of the applicant, it should become the Member State responsible and the application should be counted within its reference number as defined in Article 34. In any other case the procedure set out in Article 36c shall apply. 4. It shall be in any case possible for Member States to accept applicants with meaningful links even beyond their reference number.
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 c (new)
Article 36 c Determination of the Member State of allocation 1. On the basis of the reference key referred to in Article 35, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the six Member States with the lowest number of applicants relative to their share of the fair distribution. 2. The determining Member State shall consult the automated system and communicate the short list of six Member States to the applicant. The applicant shall be enabled to choose among the six Member States included in the list, within 7 days. For this purpose, the applicant shall receive information on the possible Member States of allocation. The determining Member State shall communicate immediately the choice to the automated system and the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2). 3. When Article 24a applies, the applicant will not be able to make the choice provided by paragraph 2, and the Member State responsible will be determined randomly by the automated system. The automated system shall communicate that information to the determining Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2). 4. In cases of allocation of a minor, under the conditions set by Article 10, the choice provided by paragraph 2 shall always be granted and shall be accompanied by a multidisciplinary assessment of the best interests of the minor.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Mariya GABRIEL, József NAGY, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the fArticle 37 deleted Financial solidarity mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the fArticle 37 deleted Financial solidarity mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefiting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250 000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – title
Financial solidarityMember State Opt-out
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – title
Financial solidarityOpt-out mechanism
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – title
Financial solidarityOpt-out
Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, József NAGY, Artis PABRIKS, Pál CSÁKY, Kinga GÁL, Pavel POC, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Miroslav POCHE, Monika SMOLKOVÁ, Jan KELLER, Vladimír MAŇKA, Andrea BOCSKOR
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – title
Financial sSolidarity
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – title
Financial solidarityConsequences of failure to comply with the allocation mechanism
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part which under Article 35 is obliged to retain competence or voluntarily assumes it, notwithstanding the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylumfulfilment of its share, shall receive a lump sum of 10.000 euros by the general budget of the Union for any applicant exceeding its share.
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the correctivThe allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member Stateshall apply ofn allocation and notify th mandatory basis to theall Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not, - either it will take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum; - either it will temporarily opt for a solidarity financial contribution in accordance with the procedures set out in paragraph 3.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period afIf there is an immediater the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter,reat to its national security, a Member State may enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the date of entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 2
2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve- month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 2
2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve- month periodcosts to transfer an applicant to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their shar under the corrective mechanism by the pEursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the informatopean Union Agency for Asylum shall be met by the general budget of the Union, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member Statend be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 300 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c).
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 2
2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve- month period to those Member States with a number ofFailure to comply with the obligations arising from the applications for which of they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the sharellocation mechanism referred to in Chapter VII shall result in the suspension of commitments and payments in relation to the national and regional operating programmes of thate Member State involved.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 2
2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-monthe opt-out period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 2
2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that casecase of a Member State does not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which enteredopted for the finformationancial solidarity, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which enteredopted for the finformationancial solidarity pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.deleted
Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, József NAGY, Artis PABRIKS, Pavel POC, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Miroslav POCHE, Monika SMOLKOVÁ, Jan KELLER, Vladimír MAŇKA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Kinga GÁL
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.deleted
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250 000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000pay, into a fund (the "Dublin Reserve Fund") to be established, per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shit, the first and the second years EUR 50 000, the third and the fourth years EUR 75 000, the fifth and the following years EUR 100 000. The funding under this 'Dublin reserve' is intended to cover the granting of a lump sum per asylum seeker, distributed proportionally be paid totween the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications that participate in the corrective allocation mechanism. If a Member State fails to pay, the Commission shall withhold the same amount from the payments due to that Member State from other Union funds.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafteras soon as possible thereafter, and not later than three months after it was notified, make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. In case of non-payment of solidarity contributions, as a measure of last resort, the Commission shall deduct the amount due from European funds to which the Member State in question is entitled
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3.deleted
Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Artis PABRIKS, József NAGY, Pál CSÁKY, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Vladimír MAŇKA, Jan KELLER, Monika SMOLKOVÁ, Miroslav POCHE, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Pavel POC
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3.deleted
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3 and 3a(new).
Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Artis PABRIKS, József NAGY, Pál CSÁKY, Kinga GÁL, Pavel POC, Andrea BOCSKOR, Vladimír MAŇKA, Jan KELLER, Monika SMOLKOVÁ, Miroslav POCHE, Olga SEHNALOVÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 5
5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 5
5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 5
5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 5
5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 5
5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 5
5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarityopt-out mechanism.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. The Commission shall establish a European solidarity fund in order to ensure financial solidarity between Member States. A Member State who benefits from the corrective allocation mechanism shall pay a compensation amount of 50.000 Euro per relocated applicant into the European solidarity fund.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. The Member State of relocation shall benefit from the European solidarity fund by receiving a payment of 50 000 Euro per relocated applicant to cover all expenses which arise from taking over the relocated person, such as costs for accommodation, language courses, health care.
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. If a Member State does not fulfil its obligations under Chapter VII, solidarity among Member States, as enshrined in Article 80 of the Lisbon Treaty, will be reinstalled by following the procedure as provided for by Article XXX of Regulation (EU) Nr 1303/2013 as modified by Regulation (EU) Nr XXX, will apply.
Proposal for a regulation Article 38
Obligations of the benefitting Member The benefitting Member State shall: (a) take a decision at the latest within one week from the communication referred to in Article 36(4) to transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, unless the benefitting Member State can accept within the same time limit responsibility for examining the application pursuant to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and Article 18; (b) notify without delay the applicant of the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State of allocation; (c) transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision.Article 38 deleted State
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, József NAGY, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 38
Obligations of the benefitting Member The benefitting Member State shall: (a) take a decision at the latest within one week from the communication referred to in Article 36(4) to transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, unless the benefitting Member State can accept within the same time limit responsibility for examining the application pursuant to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and Article 18; (b) notify without delay the applicant of the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State of allocation; (c) transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision.Article 38 deleted State
Proposal for a regulation Article 38
Obligations of the benefitting Member The benefitting Member State shall: (a) take a decision at the latest within one week from the communication referred to in Article 36(4) to transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, unless the benefitting Member State can accept within the same time limit responsibility for examining the application pursuant to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and Article 18; (b) notify without delay the applicant of the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State of allocation; (c) transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision.Article 38 deleted State
Proposal for a regulation Article 38 – title
Obligations of the benefittdetermining Member State under the allocation mechanism
Proposal for a regulation Article 38 – paragraph 1
The benefittdetermining Member State shall:
Proposal for a regulation Article 38 – paragraph 1 a (new)
(b) detain the applicant according to Article 29.
Proposal for a regulation Article 38 – paragraph a
(a) take a decision at the latest within one week from the communication referred to in Article 36(4c(2) or (3) to transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, unless the benefittdetermining Member State can accept within the same time limit responsibility for examining the application pursuant to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and Article 18 or 19;
Proposal for a regulation Article 38 – paragraph c
(c) transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision with the assistance of the Asylum Agency.
Proposal for a regulation Article 38 – paragraph c
(c) transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, at the latest within fourtwo weeks from the final transfer decision.
Proposal for a regulation Article 39
The Member State of allocation shall: (a) confirm to the benefitting Member State the receipt of the allocation communication and indicate the competent authority to which the applicant shall report following his or her transfer; (b) communicate to the benefitting Member State the arrival of the applicant or the fact that he or she did not appear within the set time limit; (c) receive the applicant and carry out the personal interview pursuant to Article 7, where applicable; (d) examine his or her application for international protection as Member State responsible, unless, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18, a different Member State is responsible for examining the application; (e) where, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18 a different Member State is responsible for examining the application, the Member State of allocation shall request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant; (f) where applicable, communicate to the Member State responsible the transfer to that Member State; (g) where applicable, transfer the applicant to the Member State responsible; (h) where applicable, enter in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2) that it will examine the application for international protection as Member State responsible.Article 39 deleted Obligations of the Member State of allocation
Proposal for a regulation Article 39
Obligations of the Member State of The Member State of allocation shall: (a) confirm to the benefitting Member State the receipt of the allocation communication and indicate the competent authority to which the applicant shall report following his or her transfer; (b) communicate to the benefitting Member State the arrival of the applicant or the fact that he or she did not appear within the set time limit; (c) receive the applicant and carry out the personal interview pursuant to Article 7, where applicable; (d) examine his or her application for international protection as Member State responsible, unless, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18, a different Member State is responsible for examining the application; (e) where, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18 a different Member State is responsible for examining the application, the Member State of allocation shall request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant; (f) where applicable, communicate to the Member State responsible the transfer to that Member State; (g) where applicable, transfer the applicant to the Member State responsible; (h) where applicable, enter in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2) that it will examine the application for international protection as Member State responsible.Article 39 deleted allocation
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, József NAGY, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 39
The Member State of allocation shall: (a) confirm to the benefitting Member State the receipt of the allocation communication and indicate the competent authority to which the applicant shall report following his or her transfer; (b) communicate to the benefitting Member State the arrival of the applicant or the fact that he or she did not appear within the set time limit; (c) receive the applicant and carry out the personal interview pursuant to Article 7, where applicable; (d) examine his or her application for international protection as Member State responsible, unless, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18, a different Member State is responsible for examining the application; (e) where, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18 a different Member State is responsible for examining the application, the Member State of allocation shall request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant; (f) where applicable, communicate to the Member State responsible the transfer to that Member State; (g) where applicable, transfer the applicant to the Member State responsible; (h) where applicable, enter in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2) that it will examine the application for international protection as Member State responsible.Article 39 deleted Obligations of the Member State of allocation
Proposal for a regulation Article 39
The Member State of allocation shall: (a) confirm to the benefitting Member State the receipt of the allocation communication and indicate the competent authority to which the applicant shall report following his or her transfer; (b) communicate to the benefitting Member State the arrival of the applicant or the fact that he or she did not appear within the set time limit; (c) receive the applicant and carry out the personal interview pursuant to Article 7, where applicable; (d) examine his or her application for international protection as Member State responsible, unless, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18, a different Member State is responsible for examining the application; (e) where, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18 a different Member State is responsible for examining the application, the Member State of allocation shall request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant; (f) where applicable, communicate to the Member State responsible the transfer to that Member State; (g) where applicable, transfer the applicant to the Member State responsible; (h) where applicable, enter in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2) that it will examine the application for international protection as Member State responsible.Article 39 deleted Obligations of the Member State of allocation
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) confirm to the benefittdetermining Member State the receipt of the allocation communication and indicate the competent authority to which the applicant shall report following his or her transfer;
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) communicate to the benefittdetermining Member State the arrival of the applicant or the fact that he or she did not appear within the set time limit;
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) examine his or her application for international protection as Member State responsible, unless, new elements demonstrate that according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18, a different Member State is responsible for examining the application;
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) examine his or her application for international protection as Member State responsible, unless, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to(1) to 10(4), 13 and 16 to 18, a different Member State is responsible for examining the application;
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) where, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10(1) to 10(4), to 13 and 16 to 18 a different Member State is responsible for examining the application, the Member State of allocation shall request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant;
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, József NAGY, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
1. Where a transfer decision according to point (a) of Article 38 is taken, the benefitting Member State shall transmit, at the same time and for the sole purpose of verifying whether the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the fingerprint data of the applicant taken pursuant to Regulation (Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation 603/2013/EU) to the Member State of allocation. 2. Where, following a security verification, information on an applicant reveals that he or she is for serious reasons considered to be a danger to the national security or public order, information on the nature of the alert shall be shared with the law enforcement authorities in the benefitting Member State and shall not be communicated via the electronic communication channels referred to in Article 47(4). The Member State of allocation shall inform the benefitting Member State of the existence of such alert, specifying the law enforcement authorities in the Member State of application that have been fully informed, and record the existence of the alert in the automated system pursuant to point d of Article 23(2), within one week of receipt of the fingerprints. 3. Where the outcome of the security verification confirms that the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the benefitting Member State of application shall be the Member State responsible and shall examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU. 4. The information exchanged shall only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1 and shall not be further processed.Article 40 deleted Exchange of relevant information for security verification
Proposal for a regulation Article 40
Exchange of relevant information for 1. Where a transfer decision according to point (a) of Article 38 is taken, the benefitting Member State shall transmit, at the same time and for the sole purpose of verifying whether the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the fingerprint data of the applicant taken pursuant to Regulation (Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation 603/2013/EU) to the Member State of allocation. 2. Where, following a security verification, information on an applicant reveals that he or she is for serious reasons considered to be a danger to the national security or public order, information on the nature of the alert shall be shared with the law enforcement authorities in the benefitting Member State and shall not be communicated via the electronic communication channels referred to in Article 47(4). The Member State of allocation shall inform the benefitting Member State of the existence of such alert, specifying the law enforcement authorities in the Member State of application that have been fully informed, and record the existence of the alert in the automated system pursuant to point d of Article 23(2), within one week of receipt of the fingerprints. 3. Where the outcome of the security verification confirms that the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the benefitting Member State of application shall be the Member State responsible and shall examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU. 4. The information exchanged shall only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1 and shall not be further processed.Article 40 deleted security verification
Exchange of relevant information for 1. Where a transfer decision according to point (a) of Article 38 is taken, the benefitting Member State shall transmit, at the same time and for the sole purpose of verifying whether the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the fingerprint data of the applicant taken pursuant to Regulation (Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation 603/2013/EU) to the Member State of allocation. 2. Where, following a security verification, information on an applicant reveals that he or she is for serious reasons considered to be a danger to the national security or public order, information on the nature of the alert shall be shared with the law enforcement authorities in the benefitting Member State and shall not be communicated via the electronic communication channels referred to in Article 47(4). The Member State of allocation shall inform the benefitting Member State of the existence of such alert, specifying the law enforcement authorities in the Member State of application that have been fully informed, and record the existence of the alert in the automated system pursuant to point d of Article 23(2), within one week of receipt of the fingerprints. 3. Where the outcome of the security verification confirms that the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the benefitting Member State of application shall be the Member State responsible and shall examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU. 4. The information exchanged shall only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1 and shall not be further processed.Article 40 deleted security verification
Proposal for a regulation Article 40
1. Where a transfer decision according to point (a) of Article 38 is taken, the benefitting Member State shall transmit, at the same time and for the sole purpose of verifying whether the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the fingerprint data of the applicant taken pursuant to Regulation (Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation 603/2013/EU) to the Member State of allocation. 2. Where, following a security verification, information on an applicant reveals that he or she is for serious reasons considered to be a danger to the national security or public order, information on the nature of the alert shall be shared with the law enforcement authorities in the benefitting Member State and shall not be communicated via the electronic communication channels referred to in Article 47(4). The Member State of allocation shall inform the benefitting Member State of the existence of such alert, specifying the law enforcement authorities in the Member State of application that have been fully informed, and record the existence of the alert in the automated system pursuant to point d of Article 23(2), within one week of receipt of the fingerprints. 3. Where the outcome of the security verification confirms that the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the benefitting Member State of application shall be the Member State responsible and shall examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU. 4. The information exchanged shall only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1 and shall not be further processed.Article 40 deleted Exchange of relevant information for security verification
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 1
1. Where a transfer decision according to point (a) of Article 38 is taken, the benefittdetermining Member State shall transmit, at the same time and for the sole purpose of verifying whether the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the fingerprint data of the applicant taken pursuant to Regulation (Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation 603/2013/EU) to the Member State of allocation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where, following a security verification, information on an applicant reveals that he or she is for serious reasons considered to be a danger to the national security or public order, information on the nature of the alert shall be fully shared with the law enforcement authorities in the benefittdetermining Member State and shall not be communicated via the electronic communication channels referred to in Article 47(4).
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The Member State of allocation shall inform the benefittdetermining Member State of the existence of such alert, specifying the law enforcement authorities in the Member State of application that have been fully informed, and after a joint evaluation of the security risks by the competent authorities of both Member States, the Member State of allocation shall record the existence of the alert in the automated system pursuant to point d of Article 23(2), within one week of receipt of the fingerprints.
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The Member State of allocation shall inform the benefitting Member State of the existence of such alert, specifying the law enforcement authorities in the Member State of application that have been fully informed, and record the existence of the alert in the automated system pursuant to point d of Article 23(2), within one week24 hours of receipt of the fingerprints.
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 3
3. Where the outcome of the security verification confirms that the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the benefitting Member State of application shall be the Member State responsible and shall examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU. If the risk of absconding exists, the Member State may take measures pursuant to Article 29.
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 3
3. Where the outcome of the security verification confirms that the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the benefittdetermining Member State of application shall be the Member State responsible and shallmay examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU.
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 3
3. Where the outcome of the security verification confirms that the applicant mayis for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the benefitting Member State of application shall be the Member State responsible and shall examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU.
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 4
4. The information exchanged shall only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1 and shall not be further processed. As soon as the accelerated procedure referred to in paragraph 3 is completed, any personal data processed and exchanged pursuant to this Article shall be destroyed.
Proposal for a regulation Article 41
1. Chapter V and Sections II to VII of Chapter VI shall apply mutatis mutandis. 2. Family members to whom the procedure for allocation applies shall be allocated to the same Member State.Article 41 deleted Procedure for allocation
Proposal for a regulation Article 41
1. Chapter V and Sections II to VII of Chapter VI shall apply mutatis mutandis. 2. Family members to whom the procedure for allocation applies shall be allocated to the same Member State.Article 41 deleted Procedure for allocation
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, József NAGY, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
1. Chapter V and Sections II to VII of Chapter VI shall apply mutatis mutandis. 2. Family members to whom the procedure for allocation applies shall be allocated to the same Member State.Article 41 deleted Procedure for allocation
Proposal for a regulation Article 41
1. Chapter V and Sections II to VII of Chapter VI shall apply mutatis mutandis. 2. Family members to whom the allocation procedure applies will be allocated to the same Member State.Article 41 deleted Procedure for allocation
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Maria GRAPINI, Dietmar KÖSTER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN
Proposal for a regulation Article 41 – paragraph 2
2. Family members to whom the procedure for allocation applies shall be allocated to the same Member State. In the case of minors, the same applies to relatives or other adults responsible for them.
Proposal for a regulation Article 41 – paragraph 2
2. Family members and relatives to whom the procedure for allocation applies shall be allocated to the same Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 41 – paragraph 2
2. Family members or siblings to whom the procedure for allocation applies shall be allocated to the same Member State.
Proposal for a regulation Article 42
Costs of allocation transfers For the costs to transfer an applicant to the Member State of allocation, the benefitting Member State shall be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 500 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c). This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.Article 42 deleted
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Petri SARVAMAA, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, József NAGY, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 42
For the costs to transfer an applicant to the Member StateArticle 42 deleted Costs of allocation, the benefitting Member State shall be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 500 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c). This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.ransfers
Proposal for a regulation Article 42
For the costs to transfer an applicant to the Member State of allocation, the benefitting Member State shall be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 500 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c). This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.Article 42 deleted Costs of allocation transfers
Proposal for a regulation Article 42
Costs of allocation transfers For the costs to transfer an applicant to the Member State of allocation, the benefiting Member State shall be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 500 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c). This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.Article 42 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 42
Costs of allocation transfers For the costs to transfer an applicant to the Member State of allocation, the benefitting Member State shall be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 500 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c). This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.Article 42 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 1
1. For the costs to transfer an applicant to the Member State of allocation, the benefitting Member State shall be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 500 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c). This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 2. The Member States of allocation shall receive an additional amount of EUR 6000 for each applicant received according to the corrective allocation procedure of this Regulation. This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 3. The fixed amount shall be increased for those Member States that have received only a few asylum seekers and their systems are not used to efficiently process asylum requests, in order to give those Member States the possibility to build capacity and ensure dignified protection for applicants. The amount shall be therefore fixed at a minimum of EUR 7500 in the first year, reduced progressively in the second year and return to EUR 6000 after two years.
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 1
For tThe costs to transfer an applicant to the Member State of allocation, by the benefitting Member State shallEuropean Asylum Agency shall be met by the general budget of the Union and be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 500 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c). This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 1
For the costs to transfer an applicant to the Member State of allocation, the benefitting Member State and if it is appropriate the European Union Agency for Asylum shall be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 500 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c). This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 1
For the costs to transfer an applicant to the Member State of allocation, the benefitting Member State shall be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 5300 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c). This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.
Proposal for a regulation Article 43
Cessation of corrective allocation The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 150 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1). Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 2, the application of the corrective allocation shall cease for that Member State.Article 43 deleted
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, József NAGY, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 43
Cessation of corrective allocation The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 150 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1). Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 2, the application of the corrective allocation shall cease for that Member State.Article 43 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 43
The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 150 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1). Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 2, the application of the corrective allocation shall cease for that Member State.Article 43 deleted Cessation of corrective allocation
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Maria GRAPINI, Kati PIRI, Miriam DALLI, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 43
Cessation of corrective allocation The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 150 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1). Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 2, the application of the corrective allocation shall cease for that Member State.Article 43 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 43
Cessation of corrective allocation The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 150 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1). Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 2, the application of the corrective allocation shall cease for that Member State.Article 43 deleted
Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO, Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Rosa D'AMATO, David BORRELLI, Marco ZULLO, Marco VALLI, Daniela AIUTO, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI
Proposal for a regulation Article 43
The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 150 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1). Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 2, the application of the corrective allocation shall cease for that Member State.Article 43 deleted Cessation of corrective allocation
Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 1
The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 15075 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 1
The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 15075 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 1
The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 1580 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1).
Proposal for a regulation Article 43 a (new)
Article 43 a Sanctions for failure to comply with corrective allocation mechanism If a Member State does not fulfil its obligations under Chapter VII it shall not be permitted to use EU funds to fund returns of third-country nationals to third countries and shall report annually on its use of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013.
Proposal for a regulation Article 43 a (new)
Article 43 a Relationship with Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 Any measures taken in accordance with Article 19(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 shall be without prejudice to the application of the present Regulation.
Proposal for a regulation Article 44
Automated system for registration, monitoring and the allocation mechanism 1. For the purposes of the registration and monitoring the share of applications for international protection pursuant to Article 22 and of the application of the allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII an automated system shall be established. 2. The automated system shall consist of the central system and the communication infrastructure between the central system and the national infrastructures. 3. The European agency for the operational management of large scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice established by Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 shall be responsible for the preparation, development and the operational management of the central system and the communication infrastructure between the central system and the national infrastructures. 4. The national infrastructures shall be developed and managed by the Member States.rticle 44 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – title
Automated sSystem for registration, and monitoring and the allocation mechanism
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 1
1. For the purposes of the registration and monitoring the share of applications for international protection pursuant to Article 22 and of the application of the allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII an automateda system shall be established.
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 2
2. The automated system shall consist of the central system and the communication infrastructure between the central system and the national infrastructures.
Proposal for a regulation Article 45
Access to the automated system 1. The competent asylum authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 47 shall have access to the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) for entering the information referred to in Article 20(7), Article 22(1), (4) and (5), Article 37(1) and point (h) of Article 39. 2. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall have access to the automated system for entering and adapting the reference key pursuant to Article 35(4) and for entering the information referred to in Article 22(3). 3. The information referred to in Article 23(2), Article 36(4) and point h of Article 39 shall be accessible for consultation only by the competent asylum authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 47 for the purposes of this Regulation and of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions and practical arrangements for entering and consulting the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure laid down in Article 56(2).rticle 45 deleted
Proposal for a regulation Article 45 – title
Access to the automated system
Proposal for a regulation Article 45 – paragraph 1
1. The competent asylum authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 47 shall have access to the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) for entering the information referred to in Article 20(7), Article 22(1), (4) and (5), Article 37(1) and point (h) of Article 39, and for the procedure of Article 36c.
Proposal for a regulation Article 45 – paragraph 1
1. The competent asylum authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 47 shall have access to the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) for entering the information referred to in Article 20(7), Article 22(1), (4) and (5), Article 37(1) and point (h) of Article 39.
Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Artis PABRIKS, József NAGY, Pál CSÁKY, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Vladimír MAŇKA, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Miroslav POCHE, Pavel POC, Monika SMOLKOVÁ, Jan KELLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 45 – paragraph 1
1. The competent asylum authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 47 shall have access to the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) for entering the information referred to in Article 20(7), Article 22(1), (4) and (5), Article 37(1) and point (h) of Article 39.
Proposal for a regulation Article 45 – paragraph 3
3. The information referred to in Article 23(2), Article 36(4) and point h of Article 39 shall be accessible for consultation only shall be accessible by the competent asylum authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 47 for the purposes of this Regulation and of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013].
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall notify the Commission without delay of the specific authorities responsible for fulfilling the obligations arising under this Regulation, and any amendments thereto. The Member States shall ensure that those authorities have the necessary resources for carrying out their tasks and in particular for replying within the prescribed time limits to requests for information, requests to take charge, take back notifications and, if applicable, complying with their obligations under the allocation mechanism .
Elly SCHLEIN, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Kati PIRI, Dietmar KÖSTER, Miriam DALLI, Marju LAURISTIN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER
Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 3
3. The authorities referred to in paragraph 1 shall receive the necessary regular training with respect to the application of this Regulation, including as regards the operating procedures for gathering relevant information and assessing the best interests of the child. Member States shall ensure the availability of specially trained staff, or specialized support services for staff, dedicated to the assessment of the best interests of the child in cases involving unaccompanied minors.
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Caterina CHINNICI, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Barbara MATERA, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Julie WARD, Silvia COSTA, Luigi MORGANO, Simona BONAFÈ, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Carlos COELHO
Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 3
3. The authorities referred to in paragraph 1 shall receive the necessary regular training with respect to the application of this Regulation, including as regards the operating procedures for gathering relevant information and assessing the best interests of the child. Member States shall ensure the availability of specially trained staff, or specialized support services for staff, dedicated to the assessment of the best interests of the child in cases involving unaccompanied minors.
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 1 a (new)
That network shall promote the exchange of best practices concerning the examination of an asylum application by the competent authorities of Member States under this Regulation and initiate the training of the employees of those authorities.
Proposal for a regulation Article 50 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Data subjects shall be notified without undue delay when a security incident including unlawful or unauthorised access or disclosure, alteration or loss of personal data processed is likely to result in a high risk to their rights and freedoms.
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 50 – paragraph 2
2. The competent supervisory authority or authorities of each Member State shall monitor the lawfulness of the processing of personal data by the authorities referred to in Article 47 of the Member State in question, including of the transmission to and from the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) and to the authorities competent for carrying out checks referred to in Article 40.
Proposal for a regulation Article 50 – paragraph 3
3. The processing of personal data by the European Union Agency for Asylum shall be subject to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the provisions on data protection laid down in [Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010], in particular as regards the monitoring of the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the provisions on data protection laid down in [Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010].
Proposal for a regulation Article 52
Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties, including administrative and/or criminal penalties in accordance with national law, applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.Article 52 deleted Penalties
Proposal for a regulation Article 53
Where an application has been lodged after [the first day following the entry into force of this Regulation] , the events that are likely to entail the responsibility of a Member State under this Regulation shall be taken into consideration, even if they precede that date. By way of derogation from Article 34(2), during the first three months after entry into force of this Regulation, the corrective allocation mechanism shall not be triggered. By way of derogation from Article 34(3), after the expiry of the three month period following the entry into force of this Regulation and until the expiry of one year following the entry into force of this Regulation, the reference period shall be the period which has elapsed since the entry into force of this Regulation.Article 53 deleted Transitional measures
Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 2
By way of derogation from Article 34(2), during the first three months after entry into force of this Regulation, the corrective allocation mechanism shall not be triggered. By way of derogation from Article 34(3), after the expiry of the three month period following the entry into force of this Regulation and until the expiry of one year following the entry into force of this Regulation, the reference period shall be the period which has elapsed since the entry into force of this Regulation.deleted
|