BETA
This is a historical view (2017/03/13)

Changes: 2024/03/28docs.summary, 2024/03/18docs.summary, 2024/03/16docs.summary, 2024/03/12docs.summary

View current state | View Changes for this date

Sorry, but we failed to recreate history before 2024-03-11T00:20:39


2016/0222(COD) Reception Conditions Directive
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date 2024/04/10 more...

Progress: Awaiting Parliament's position in 1st reading

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead LIBE IN 'T VELD Sophia (icon: Renew Renew) DÜPONT Lena (icon: EPP EPP), ENGERER Cyrus (icon: S&D S&D), CARÊME Damien (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), BERG Lars Patrick (icon: ECR ECR), JAKI Patryk (icon: ECR ECR), ERNST Cornelia (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Former Responsible Committee LIBE
Committee Opinion AFET
Committee Opinion EMPL
Former Committee Opinion AFET
Former Committee Opinion EMPL
Committee Recast Technique Opinion JURI
Fromer Committee Recast Technique Opinion JURI
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
TFEU 078-p2

Events

2024/04/10
   Indicative plenary sitting date
2024/02/14
   EP - Approval in committee of the text agreed at 1st reading interinstitutional negotiations
2024/02/08
   CSL - Coreper letter confirming interinstitutional agreement
2020/01/30
   FR_ASSEMBLY - Contribution
Documents
2019/10/21
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
2019/09/04
   EP - IN 'T VELD Sophia (Renew) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
2017/06/09
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2017/06/09
   CSL - Council Meeting
2017/05/17
   EP - Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 71)
2017/05/15
   EP - Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations announced in plenary (Rule 71)
2017/05/10
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
2017/05/10
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
Documents
2017/04/25
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading
2017/04/25
   EP - Committee decision to open interinstitutional negotiations with report adopted in committee
2017/04/12
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2017/02/08
   CofR - Committee of the Regions: opinion
Documents
2017/01/18
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2016/12/09
   CSL - Council Meeting
2016/11/14
   DE_BUNDESRAT - Contribution
Documents
2016/10/27
   CZ_SENATE - Contribution
Documents
2016/10/14
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2016/10/14
   CSL - Council Meeting
2016/10/12
   RO_CHAMBER - Contribution
Documents
2016/10/10
   CZ_CHAMBER - Contribution
Documents
2016/09/15
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
2016/07/13
   EC - Legislative proposal published
Details

PURPOSE: to recast the Directive laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).

PROPOSE ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council.

ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council.

BACKGROUND: the Common European Asylum System is based on rules determining the Member State responsible for applicants for international protection , common standards for asylum procedures, reception conditions, the recognition and protection of beneficiaries of international protection.

Notwithstanding the significant progress that has been made in the development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), there are still notable differences between the Member States in the types of procedures used, the reception conditions provided to applicants, the recognition rates and the type of protection granted to beneficiaries of international protection. These divergences contribute to secondary movements and asylum shopping, create pull factors, and ultimately lead to an uneven distribution among the Member States of the responsibility to offer protection to those in need.

Recent large scale arrivals have shown that Europe needs an effective and efficient asylum system able to assure a fair and sustainable sharing of responsibility between Member States and to ensure the quality of the decisions made.

Against this backdrop, the Commission presented a first set of proposals to reform the Common European Asylum System delivering on three priorities identified in its Communication:

establishing a sustainable and fair Dublin system for determining the Member State responsible for examining asylum applications, reinforcing the Eurodac system to better monitor secondary movements and facilitate the fight against irregular migration, establishing a genuine European Union Agency for Asylum to ensure the well-functioning of the European asylum system.

With the second package, the Commission is completing the reform of the Common European Asylum System by adopting four additional proposals:

a proposal replacing the Asylum Procedures Directive with a Regulation , harmonising the current disparate procedural arrangements in all Member States and creating a genuine common procedure; a proposal replacing the Qualification Directive with a Regulation , setting uniform standards for the recognition of persons in need of protection and the rights granted to beneficiaries of international protection; this proposal revising the Reception Conditions Directive; a structured Union resettlement framework , moving towards a more managed approach to international protection within the EU.

CONTENT: the proposed Reception Conditions Directive provides for minimum harmonisation of standards for the reception of applicants for international protection in the EU. Reception conditions however continue to vary considerably between Member States both in terms of how the reception system is organised and in terms of the standards provided to applicants.

This has contributed to secondary movements and has put pressure on certain Member States in particular.

In view of this, this proposal aims to:

1. Further harmonisation of reception conditions in the EU : This will both ensure that the treatment of applicants is dignified across the EU, in accordance with fundamental rights and rights of the child, and to reduce secondary movements of migrants.

The main amendments of the new measure concern:

scope : the Reception Conditions Directive continues to apply to all third-country nationals and stateless persons who make an application for international protection on the territory of any of the Member States, as long as they are allowed to remain on the territory as applicants and as soon as the application is made. An exception is introduced for cases where an applicant is irregularly present in another Member State than the one in which he or she is required to be present. In this situation, he or she is not entitled to material reception conditions, schooling and education of minors as well as employment and vocational training. The proposal clarifies that applicants will however always be entitled to health care and to a dignified standard of living, in accordance with fundamental rights , to cover the applicant's subsistence and basic needs both in terms of physical safety, dignity and interpersonal relationships. However, in order to ensure respect for the fundamental rights of the child, Member States should provide minors with access to suitable educational activities pending the transfer to the Member State responsible. The proposal makes it clear that the right to a dignified treatment applies also in cases where a Member State, in duly justified cases, is exceptionally applying different standards of material reception conditions from the one required by the Reception Conditions Directive. the definition of family members : this is extended by including family relations which were formed after leaving the country of origin but before arrival on the territory of the Member State. This reflects the reality of migration today where applicants often stay for long periods of time outside their country of origin before reaching the EU, such as in refugee camps; indicators : the proposal requires Member States to take into account operational standards and indicators on reception conditions currently being developed by European Asylum Support Office; urgent situations : the proposal obliges Member States to draw up, and regularly update, contingency plans setting out the measures foreseen to be taken to ensure adequate reception of applicants in cases where the Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applicants. The proposal also requires the Member States to inform the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum whenever their contingency plan is activated; particular needs of certain applicants : the proposal clarifies that persons with special reception needs are persons who are in need of special guarantees in order to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations provided for in the Reception Conditions Directive, regardless of whether these persons are considered vulnerable. The proposal also includes more detailed rules for assessing, determining, documenting and addressing applicants' special reception needs as soon as possible and throughout the reception period (e.g. a doctor or a psychologists); provisions concerning the guardian of unaccompanied minors : the proposal introduces stricter time limits, within five working days from the moment the application was made, for the Member States to assign a guardian to represent and assist an unaccompanied minor.

2. Reducing reception-related incentives for secondary movements within the EU : to ensure an orderly management of migration flows, facilitate the determination of the Member State responsible and to prevent secondary movements, it is essential that the applicants remain in the Member State which is responsible for them and do not abscond. The introduction of more targeted restrictions to the applicants' freedom of movement and strict consequences when such restrictions are not complied with will contribute to more effective monitoring of the applicants' whereabouts .

Further harmonisation of possibilities to assign a specific place of residence to applicants, to impose reporting obligations and to provide material reception conditions only in kind is also necessary to create a more predictable situation for applicants, to ensure that they are accounted for regardless of which Member State they are present in and to deter them from absconding.

This applies in particular in three situations namely where:

the applicant did not make an application for international protection in the Member State of first irregular entry or legal entry; the applicant has absconded from the Member State in which he or she is required to be present where the applicant has been sent back to the Member State where he or she is required to be present after having absconded to another Member State.

The proposal requires Member States to inform applicants, using a common template , as soon as possible and at the latest when they lodge their application, of any benefits and obligations, which applicants must comply with in relation to reception conditions, including the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted (for example, if they abscond).

The proposal underlines that:

all decisions restricting an applicant's freedom of movement need to be based on the particular situation of the person concerned, taking into account any special reception needs of applicants and the principle of proportionality; Member States should only provide applicants with a travel document when serious humanitarian reasons arise. Travel documents should not be issued outside of these exceptional circumstances.

Other measures are included such as:

enlarging material reception conditions to include sanitary items; limit daily allowances in certain circumstances; altering the form of material reception conditions. These may be scaled back or altered where the applicant has: seriously breached the rules of the accommodation centre or behaved in a seriously violent way; not complied with the obligation to apply for international protection in the Member State of first irregular entry or of legal entry; in case an applicant has been assigned a specific place of residence but has not complied with this obligation, and where there is a continued risk that the applicant may abscond, the applicant may be detained in order to ensure the fulfilment of the obligation to reside in a specific place. All the guarantees already provided for in the current Reception Conditions Directive regarding detention remain unchanged.

3. Increase applicants' self-reliance and possible integration prospects : except for those whose applications are likely to be rejected, applicants should, as quickly as possible, be allowed to work and earn their own money, even whilst their applications are being processed. The time-limit for access to the labour market should therefore be reduced from no later than nine months to no later than six months from the lodging of the application.

Further limiting the current wide discrepancies between Member States' rules on access to the labour market is also essential in order to reduce employment-related asylum-shopping and incentives for secondary movements.

It is proposed that, once granted access to the labour market, applicants should be entitled to a common set of rights based on equal treatment with nationals of the Member State similarly as other third-country nationals who are working in the Union. It has been specifically stated that the right to equal treatment does not give rise to a right to reside in cases where the applicants' application for international protection has been rejected.

Working conditions referred to in the proposal cover at least pay and dismissal, health and safety requirements at the workplace, working time and leave, taking into account collective agreements in force.

The proposal makes it possible to limit equal treatment concerning education and vocational training to such education and training directly linked to a specific employment activity. The proposal also makes it possible to limit applicants' equal treatment with regard to family benefits and unemployment benefits .

Implementation and monitoring : the Commission shall report on the application of this Directive to the European Parliament and to the Council within three years from its entry into force and every five years after that.

Territorial provisions : the participation of the United Kingdom and Ireland will be determined in the course of the negotiations and in accordance with 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 (TEU) and the TFEU.

Denmark shall not be subject to its application.

Documents

AmendmentsDossier
637 2016/0222(COD)
2017/02/23 LIBE 492 amendments...
source: 597.665
2017/03/06 EMPL 145 amendments...
source: 600.924

History

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

docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
forecasts/0/date
Old
2024-04-22T00:00:00
New
2024-04-10T00:00:00
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/4
date
2024-02-08T00:00:00
docs
title: GEDA/A/(2024)000945
type
Coreper letter confirming interinstitutional agreement
body
CSL
events/10/docs
  • title: GEDA/A/(2024)000945
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
events/10
date
2024-02-14T00:00:00
type
Approval in committee of the text agreed at 1st reading interinstitutional negotiations
body
EP
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/4/date
Old
2016-10-09T00:00:00
New
2016-10-10T00:00:00
docs/5/date
Old
2016-10-26T00:00:00
New
2016-10-27T00:00:00
docs/6/date
Old
2016-11-13T00:00:00
New
2016-11-14T00:00:00
docs/7/date
Old
2016-10-11T00:00:00
New
2016-10-12T00:00:00
docs/8/date
Old
2020-01-29T00:00:00
New
2020-01-30T00:00:00
events/5/date
Old
2017-05-09T00:00:00
New
2017-05-10T00:00:00
forecasts
  • date: 2024-04-22T00:00:00 title: Indicative plenary sitting date
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/4/date
Old
2016-10-10T00:00:00
New
2016-10-09T00:00:00
docs/5/date
Old
2016-10-27T00:00:00
New
2016-10-26T00:00:00
docs/6/date
Old
2016-11-14T00:00:00
New
2016-11-13T00:00:00
docs/7/date
Old
2016-10-12T00:00:00
New
2016-10-11T00:00:00
docs/8/date
Old
2020-01-30T00:00:00
New
2020-01-29T00:00:00
events/5/date
Old
2017-05-10T00:00:00
New
2017-05-09T00:00:00
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/0
date
2016-11-17T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/parlements_nationaux/com/2016/0465/IT_SENATE_AVIS-COM(2016)0465_EN.pdf title: PE593.981
type
Reasoned opinion
body
IT_SENATE
docs/3
date
2017-05-10T00:00:00
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0186_EN.html title: A8-0186/2017
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs/3/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/4
date
2017-05-10T00:00:00
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0186_EN.html title: A8-0186/2017
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs/4
date
2016-10-09T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465
type
Contribution
body
CZ_CHAMBER
docs/4/date
Old
2016-10-09T00:00:00
New
2016-10-10T00:00:00
docs/5
date
2016-10-09T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465
type
Contribution
body
CZ_CHAMBER
docs/5
date
2016-10-26T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465
type
Contribution
body
CZ_SENATE
docs/5/date
Old
2016-10-26T00:00:00
New
2016-10-27T00:00:00
docs/6
date
2016-10-26T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465
type
Contribution
body
CZ_SENATE
docs/6
date
2016-11-13T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465
type
Contribution
body
DE_BUNDESRAT
docs/6/date
Old
2016-11-13T00:00:00
New
2016-11-14T00:00:00
docs/7
date
2016-11-13T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465
type
Contribution
body
DE_BUNDESRAT
docs/7
date
2016-10-11T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465
type
Contribution
body
RO_CHAMBER
docs/7/date
Old
2016-10-11T00:00:00
New
2016-10-12T00:00:00
docs/8
date
2016-10-11T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465
type
Contribution
body
RO_CHAMBER
docs/8
date
2020-01-29T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465
type
Contribution
body
FR_ASSEMBLY
docs/8/date
Old
2020-01-29T00:00:00
New
2020-01-30T00:00:00
docs/9
date
2020-01-29T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465
type
Contribution
body
FR_ASSEMBLY
events/5/date
Old
2017-05-09T00:00:00
New
2017-05-10T00:00:00
procedure/Legislative priorities/0
Old
title
Joint Declaration 2018-19
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2063000&l=en
New
title
Joint Declaration 2017
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2062000&l=en
procedure/Legislative priorities/1
title
Joint Declaration 2023-24
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=41380&l=en
procedure/Legislative priorities/2
Old
title
Joint Declaration 2022
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=41360&l=en
New
title
Joint Declaration 2018-19
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2063000&l=en
procedure/Legislative priorities/3
Old
title
Joint Declaration 2017
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2062000&l=en
New
title
Joint Declaration 2022
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=41360&l=en
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
docs/4/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
docs/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465
New
https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465
docs/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465
New
https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465
docs/7/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465
New
https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465
docs/8/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465
New
https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465
docs/9/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465
New
https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465
events/5/summary
  • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).
  • The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:
  • Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.
  • The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued.
  • In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.
  • Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care).
  • Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.
  • Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.
  • It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.
  • Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.
  • Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.
  • Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.
  • In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.
  • In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.
  • Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.
  • Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.
  • Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.
  • In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.
  • Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.
  • Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
links/Research document/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2016)593520
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2016)593520
docs/0
date
2016-07-13T00:00:00
docs
summary
type
Legislative proposal
body
EC
docs/4
date
2017-05-10T00:00:00
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0186_EN.html title: A8-0186/2017
summary
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs/5/date
Old
2016-10-10T00:00:00
New
2016-10-09T00:00:00
docs/6/date
Old
2016-10-27T00:00:00
New
2016-10-26T00:00:00
docs/7/date
Old
2016-11-14T00:00:00
New
2016-11-13T00:00:00
docs/8/date
Old
2016-10-12T00:00:00
New
2016-10-11T00:00:00
docs/9/date
Old
2020-01-30T00:00:00
New
2020-01-29T00:00:00
events/0
date
2016-07-13T00:00:00
type
Legislative proposal published
body
EC
docs
summary
events/4
date
2017-05-10T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0186_EN.html title: A8-0186/2017
summary
events/5
date
2017-05-10T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0186_EN.html title: A8-0186/2017
summary
events/5/date
Old
2017-05-10T00:00:00
New
2017-05-09T00:00:00
procedure/Legislative priorities/0
Old
title
Joint Declaration 2018-19
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2063000&l=en
New
title
Joint Declaration 2021
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2066000&l=en
procedure/Legislative priorities/1
title
Joint Declaration 2022
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=41360&l=en
procedure/Legislative priorities/2
Old
title
Joint Declaration 2021
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2066000&l=en
New
title
Joint Declaration 2018-19
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2063000&l=en
committees/1/rapporteur
  • name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2016-09-05T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/5/rapporteur
  • name: BENIFEI Brando date: 2016-09-09T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/7/rapporteur
  • name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz date: 2017-01-31T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
docs/0
date
2016-07-13T00:00:00
docs
summary
type
Legislative proposal
body
EC
events/0
date
2016-07-13T00:00:00
type
Legislative proposal published
body
EC
docs
summary
events/1/body
EP
events/3/body
EP
events/5/body
EP
events/9/body
EP
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE593.978
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-PR-593978_EN.html
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE599.692&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EMPL-AD-599692_EN.html
events/1
date
2016-09-15T00:00:00
type
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
events/1
date
2016-09-15T00:00:00
type
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
events/3
date
2017-04-25T00:00:00
type
Vote in committee, 1st reading
events/3
date
2017-04-25T00:00:00
type
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
events/5
date
2017-05-10T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0186_EN.html title: A8-0186/2017
summary
events/5
date
2017-05-10T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0186_EN.html title: A8-0186/2017
summary
events/9
date
2019-10-21T00:00:00
type
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
events/9
date
2019-10-21T00:00:00
type
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
procedure/title
Old
Reception of applicants for international protection. Recast
New
Reception Conditions Directive
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2016-09-05T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2016-09-05T00:00:00 group: ??? abbr: Unknown Group
committees/5
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Employment and Social Affairs
committee
EMPL
rapporteur
name: BENIFEI Brando date: 2016-09-09T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/5
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Employment and Social Affairs
committee
EMPL
rapporteur
name: BENIFEI Brando date: 2016-09-09T00:00:00 group: ??? abbr: Unknown Group
committees/7
type
Fromer Committee Recast Technique Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz date: 2017-01-31T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/7
type
Fromer Committee Recast Technique Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz date: 2017-01-31T00:00:00 group: ??? abbr: Unknown Group
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2016-09-05T00:00:00 group: ??? abbr: Unknown Group
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2016-09-05T00:00:00 group: ALDE - Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2016-09-05T00:00:00 group: ALDE - Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2016-09-05T00:00:00 group: ??? abbr: Unknown Group
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2016-09-05T00:00:00 group: ??? abbr: Unknown Group
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2016-09-05T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/5
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Employment and Social Affairs
committee
EMPL
rapporteur
name: BENIFEI Brando date: 2016-09-09T00:00:00 group: ??? abbr: Unknown Group
committees/5
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Employment and Social Affairs
committee
EMPL
rapporteur
name: BENIFEI Brando date: 2016-09-09T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/7
type
Fromer Committee Recast Technique Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz date: 2017-01-31T00:00:00 group: ??? abbr: Unknown Group
committees/7
type
Fromer Committee Recast Technique Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz date: 2017-01-31T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
https://dm.cor.europa.eu/CORDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:5807)(documentyear:2016)(documentlanguage:EN)
New
https://dmsearch.cor.europa.eu/search/public?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:5807)(documentyear:2016)(documentlanguage:EN)
procedure/Legislative priorities/0
title
Joint Declaration 2018
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2063000&l=en
procedure/Legislative priorities/0/title
Old
Joint Declaration 2018
New
Joint Declaration 2018-19
procedure/Legislative priorities/1
title
Joint Declaration 2018
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2063000&l=en
procedure/Legislative priorities/2
title
Joint Declaration 2021
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2066000&l=en
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
shadows
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref
28266
committees/5/rapporteur/0/mepref
124867
committees/0/shadows
  • name: DÜPONT Lena group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP
  • name: PIRI Kati group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
  • name: BERG Lars Patrick group: Identity and Democracy abbr: ID
  • name: CARÊME Damien group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE
  • name: PROCACCINI Nicola group: European Conservatives and Reformists Group abbr: ECR
  • name: ERNST Cornelia group: Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left abbr: GUE/NGL
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE593.978
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE593.978
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE599.692&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE599.692&secondRef=02
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0186_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0186_EN.html
events/6/body
EP
events/7/body
EP
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
New
Awaiting Parliament's position in 1st reading
procedure/Notes
  • 17/05/2018 Decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 69c)
events/6
date
2017-05-15T00:00:00
type
Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations announced in plenary (Rule 71)
events/7
date
2017-05-17T00:00:00
type
Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 71)
docs/8
date
2020-01-30T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465
type
Contribution
body
FR_ASSEMBLY
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0186&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0186_EN.html
events/7
date
2019-10-21T00:00:00
type
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
committees/2/opinion
False
committees/3/opinion
False
docs/1
date
2017-01-18T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE593.978 title: PE593.978
type
Committee draft report
body
EP
docs/3
date
2017-04-12T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE599.692&secondRef=02 title: PE599.692
committee
EMPL
type
Committee opinion
body
EP
events/3
date
2017-04-25T00:00:00
type
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
events/4
date
2017-04-25T00:00:00
type
Committee decision to open interinstitutional negotiations with report adopted in committee
body
EP
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
committees/3/opinion
False
committees/0/rapporteur
  • name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
committees/0/date
    committees/1
    type
    Former Responsible Committee
    body
    EP
    associated
    False
    committee_full
    Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
    committee
    LIBE
    rapporteur
    name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2016-09-05T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
    committees/1
    type
    Former Responsible Committee
    body
    EP
    associated
    False
    committee_full
    Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
    committee
    LIBE
    date
    2016-09-05T00:00:00
    rapporteur
    name: IN 'T VELD Sophia group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
    committees/2/date
      committees/3/date
        committees/4/date
          committees/5
          type
          Former Committee Opinion
          body
          EP
          associated
          False
          committee_full
          Employment and Social Affairs
          committee
          EMPL
          rapporteur
          name: BENIFEI Brando date: 2016-09-09T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
          committees/5
          type
          Former Committee Opinion
          body
          EP
          associated
          False
          committee_full
          Employment and Social Affairs
          committee
          EMPL
          date
          2016-09-09T00:00:00
          rapporteur
          name: BENIFEI Brando group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
          committees/6/date
            committees/7
            type
            Fromer Committee Recast Technique Opinion
            body
            EP
            associated
            False
            committee_full
            Legal Affairs
            committee
            JURI
            rapporteur
            name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz date: 2017-01-31T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
            committees/7
            type
            Fromer Committee Recast Technique Opinion
            body
            EP
            associated
            False
            committee_full
            Legal Affairs
            committee
            JURI
            date
            2017-01-31T00:00:00
            rapporteur
            name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
            activities
            • date: 2016-07-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2016/0465/COM_COM(2016)0465_EN.pdf title: COM(2016)0465 type: Legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:52016PC0465:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/migration-and-home-affairs_en title: Migration and Home Affairs Commissioner: AVRAMOPOULOS Dimitris type: Legislative proposal published
            • date: 2016-09-15T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Foreign Affairs committee: AFET body: EP responsible: False committee: EMPL date: 2016-09-09T00:00:00 committee_full: Employment and Social Affairs rapporteur: group: S&D name: BENIFEI Brando body: EP responsible: None committee: JURI date: 2017-01-31T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: POGLIESE Salvatore Domenico group: S&D name: PIRI Kati group: ECR name: HALLA-AHO Jussi group: GUE/NGL name: ERNST Cornelia group: Verts/ALE name: VALERO Bodil group: ENF name: LEBRETON Gilles responsible: True committee: LIBE date: 2016-09-05T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: IN 'T VELD Sophia
            • body: CSL meeting_id: 3490 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3490*&MEET_DATE=14/10/2016 type: Debate in Council title: 3490 council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) date: 2016-10-14T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
            • date: 2016-12-09T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 3508
            • date: 2017-04-25T00:00:00 body: unknown type: Committee decision to open interinstitutional negotiations with report adopted in committee
            • date: 2017-04-25T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Foreign Affairs committee: AFET body: EP responsible: False committee: EMPL date: 2016-09-09T00:00:00 committee_full: Employment and Social Affairs rapporteur: group: S&D name: BENIFEI Brando body: EP responsible: None committee: JURI date: 2017-01-31T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: POGLIESE Salvatore Domenico group: S&D name: PIRI Kati group: ECR name: HALLA-AHO Jussi group: GUE/NGL name: ERNST Cornelia group: Verts/ALE name: VALERO Bodil group: ENF name: LEBRETON Gilles responsible: True committee: LIBE date: 2016-09-05T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: IN 'T VELD Sophia
            • body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0186&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A8-0186/2017 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Foreign Affairs committee: AFET body: EP responsible: False committee: EMPL date: 2016-09-09T00:00:00 committee_full: Employment and Social Affairs rapporteur: group: S&D name: BENIFEI Brando body: EP responsible: None committee: JURI date: 2017-01-31T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: POGLIESE Salvatore Domenico group: S&D name: PIRI Kati group: ECR name: HALLA-AHO Jussi group: GUE/NGL name: ERNST Cornelia group: Verts/ALE name: VALERO Bodil group: ENF name: LEBRETON Gilles responsible: True committee: LIBE date: 2016-09-05T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2017-05-10T00:00:00
            • body: CSL meeting_id: 3545 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3545*&MEET_DATE=09/06/2017 type: Debate in Council title: 3545 council: Transport, Telecommunications and Energy date: 2017-06-09T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
            commission
            • body: EC dg: Migration and Home Affairs commissioner: AVRAMOPOULOS Dimitris
            committees/0
            type
            Responsible Committee
            body
            EP
            associated
            False
            committee_full
            Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
            committee
            LIBE
            date
            committees/0
            body
            EP
            responsible
            False
            committee_full
            Foreign Affairs
            committee
            AFET
            committees/1
            type
            Former Responsible Committee
            body
            EP
            associated
            False
            committee_full
            Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
            committee
            LIBE
            date
            2016-09-05T00:00:00
            rapporteur
            name: IN 'T VELD Sophia group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
            committees/1
            body
            EP
            responsible
            False
            committee
            EMPL
            date
            2016-09-09T00:00:00
            committee_full
            Employment and Social Affairs
            rapporteur
            group: S&D name: BENIFEI Brando
            committees/2
            type
            Committee Opinion
            body
            EP
            associated
            False
            committee_full
            Foreign Affairs
            committee
            AFET
            date
            committees/2
            body
            EP
            responsible
            None
            committee
            JURI
            date
            2017-01-31T00:00:00
            committee_full
            Legal Affairs
            rapporteur
            group: EPP name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz
            committees/3
            type
            Committee Opinion
            body
            EP
            associated
            False
            committee_full
            Employment and Social Affairs
            committee
            EMPL
            date
            committees/3
            body
            EP
            shadows
            responsible
            True
            committee
            LIBE
            date
            2016-09-05T00:00:00
            committee_full
            Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
            rapporteur
            group: ALDE name: IN 'T VELD Sophia
            committees/4
            type
            Former Committee Opinion
            body
            EP
            associated
            False
            committee_full
            Foreign Affairs
            committee
            AFET
            date
            committees/5
            type
            Former Committee Opinion
            body
            EP
            associated
            False
            committee_full
            Employment and Social Affairs
            committee
            EMPL
            date
            2016-09-09T00:00:00
            rapporteur
            name: BENIFEI Brando group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
            committees/6
            type
            Committee Recast Technique Opinion
            body
            EP
            associated
            False
            committee_full
            Legal Affairs
            committee
            JURI
            date
            committees/7
            type
            Fromer Committee Recast Technique Opinion
            body
            EP
            associated
            False
            committee_full
            Legal Affairs
            committee
            JURI
            date
            2017-01-31T00:00:00
            rapporteur
            name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
            council
            • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Transport, Telecommunications and Energy meeting_id: 3545 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3545*&MEET_DATE=09/06/2017 date: 2017-06-09T00:00:00
            • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 3508 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3508*&MEET_DATE=09/12/2016 date: 2016-12-09T00:00:00
            • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 3490 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3490*&MEET_DATE=14/10/2016 date: 2016-10-14T00:00:00
            docs
            • date: 2016-11-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/parlements_nationaux/com/2016/0465/IT_SENATE_AVIS-COM(2016)0465_EN.pdf title: PE593.981 type: Reasoned opinion body: IT_SENATE
            • date: 2017-02-08T00:00:00 docs: url: https://dm.cor.europa.eu/CORDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:5807)(documentyear:2016)(documentlanguage:EN) title: CDR5807/2016 type: Committee of the Regions: opinion body: CofR
            • date: 2016-10-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465 type: Contribution body: CZ_CHAMBER
            • date: 2016-10-27T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465 type: Contribution body: CZ_SENATE
            • date: 2016-11-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465 type: Contribution body: DE_BUNDESRAT
            • date: 2016-10-12T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0465 title: COM(2016)0465 type: Contribution body: RO_CHAMBER
            events
            • date: 2016-07-13T00:00:00 type: Legislative proposal published body: EC docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2016/0465/COM_COM(2016)0465_EN.pdf title: COM(2016)0465 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2016&nu_doc=0465 title: EUR-Lex summary: PURPOSE: to recast the Directive laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast). PROPOSE ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council. BACKGROUND: the Common European Asylum System is based on rules determining the Member State responsible for applicants for international protection , common standards for asylum procedures, reception conditions, the recognition and protection of beneficiaries of international protection. Notwithstanding the significant progress that has been made in the development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), there are still notable differences between the Member States in the types of procedures used, the reception conditions provided to applicants, the recognition rates and the type of protection granted to beneficiaries of international protection. These divergences contribute to secondary movements and asylum shopping, create pull factors, and ultimately lead to an uneven distribution among the Member States of the responsibility to offer protection to those in need. Recent large scale arrivals have shown that Europe needs an effective and efficient asylum system able to assure a fair and sustainable sharing of responsibility between Member States and to ensure the quality of the decisions made. Against this backdrop, the Commission presented a first set of proposals to reform the Common European Asylum System delivering on three priorities identified in its Communication: establishing a sustainable and fair Dublin system for determining the Member State responsible for examining asylum applications, reinforcing the Eurodac system to better monitor secondary movements and facilitate the fight against irregular migration, establishing a genuine European Union Agency for Asylum to ensure the well-functioning of the European asylum system. With the second package, the Commission is completing the reform of the Common European Asylum System by adopting four additional proposals: a proposal replacing the Asylum Procedures Directive with a Regulation , harmonising the current disparate procedural arrangements in all Member States and creating a genuine common procedure; a proposal replacing the Qualification Directive with a Regulation , setting uniform standards for the recognition of persons in need of protection and the rights granted to beneficiaries of international protection; this proposal revising the Reception Conditions Directive; a structured Union resettlement framework , moving towards a more managed approach to international protection within the EU. CONTENT: the proposed Reception Conditions Directive provides for minimum harmonisation of standards for the reception of applicants for international protection in the EU. Reception conditions however continue to vary considerably between Member States both in terms of how the reception system is organised and in terms of the standards provided to applicants. This has contributed to secondary movements and has put pressure on certain Member States in particular. In view of this, this proposal aims to: 1. Further harmonisation of reception conditions in the EU : This will both ensure that the treatment of applicants is dignified across the EU, in accordance with fundamental rights and rights of the child, and to reduce secondary movements of migrants. The main amendments of the new measure concern: scope : the Reception Conditions Directive continues to apply to all third-country nationals and stateless persons who make an application for international protection on the territory of any of the Member States, as long as they are allowed to remain on the territory as applicants and as soon as the application is made. An exception is introduced for cases where an applicant is irregularly present in another Member State than the one in which he or she is required to be present. In this situation, he or she is not entitled to material reception conditions, schooling and education of minors as well as employment and vocational training. The proposal clarifies that applicants will however always be entitled to health care and to a dignified standard of living, in accordance with fundamental rights , to cover the applicant's subsistence and basic needs both in terms of physical safety, dignity and interpersonal relationships. However, in order to ensure respect for the fundamental rights of the child, Member States should provide minors with access to suitable educational activities pending the transfer to the Member State responsible. The proposal makes it clear that the right to a dignified treatment applies also in cases where a Member State, in duly justified cases, is exceptionally applying different standards of material reception conditions from the one required by the Reception Conditions Directive. the definition of family members : this is extended by including family relations which were formed after leaving the country of origin but before arrival on the territory of the Member State. This reflects the reality of migration today where applicants often stay for long periods of time outside their country of origin before reaching the EU, such as in refugee camps; indicators : the proposal requires Member States to take into account operational standards and indicators on reception conditions currently being developed by European Asylum Support Office; urgent situations : the proposal obliges Member States to draw up, and regularly update, contingency plans setting out the measures foreseen to be taken to ensure adequate reception of applicants in cases where the Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applicants. The proposal also requires the Member States to inform the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum whenever their contingency plan is activated; particular needs of certain applicants : the proposal clarifies that persons with special reception needs are persons who are in need of special guarantees in order to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations provided for in the Reception Conditions Directive, regardless of whether these persons are considered vulnerable. The proposal also includes more detailed rules for assessing, determining, documenting and addressing applicants' special reception needs as soon as possible and throughout the reception period (e.g. a doctor or a psychologists); provisions concerning the guardian of unaccompanied minors : the proposal introduces stricter time limits, within five working days from the moment the application was made, for the Member States to assign a guardian to represent and assist an unaccompanied minor. 2. Reducing reception-related incentives for secondary movements within the EU : to ensure an orderly management of migration flows, facilitate the determination of the Member State responsible and to prevent secondary movements, it is essential that the applicants remain in the Member State which is responsible for them and do not abscond. The introduction of more targeted restrictions to the applicants' freedom of movement and strict consequences when such restrictions are not complied with will contribute to more effective monitoring of the applicants' whereabouts . Further harmonisation of possibilities to assign a specific place of residence to applicants, to impose reporting obligations and to provide material reception conditions only in kind is also necessary to create a more predictable situation for applicants, to ensure that they are accounted for regardless of which Member State they are present in and to deter them from absconding. This applies in particular in three situations namely where: the applicant did not make an application for international protection in the Member State of first irregular entry or legal entry; the applicant has absconded from the Member State in which he or she is required to be present where the applicant has been sent back to the Member State where he or she is required to be present after having absconded to another Member State. The proposal requires Member States to inform applicants, using a common template , as soon as possible and at the latest when they lodge their application, of any benefits and obligations, which applicants must comply with in relation to reception conditions, including the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted (for example, if they abscond). The proposal underlines that: all decisions restricting an applicant's freedom of movement need to be based on the particular situation of the person concerned, taking into account any special reception needs of applicants and the principle of proportionality; Member States should only provide applicants with a travel document when serious humanitarian reasons arise. Travel documents should not be issued outside of these exceptional circumstances. Other measures are included such as: enlarging material reception conditions to include sanitary items; limit daily allowances in certain circumstances; altering the form of material reception conditions. These may be scaled back or altered where the applicant has: seriously breached the rules of the accommodation centre or behaved in a seriously violent way; not complied with the obligation to apply for international protection in the Member State of first irregular entry or of legal entry; in case an applicant has been assigned a specific place of residence but has not complied with this obligation, and where there is a continued risk that the applicant may abscond, the applicant may be detained in order to ensure the fulfilment of the obligation to reside in a specific place. All the guarantees already provided for in the current Reception Conditions Directive regarding detention remain unchanged. 3. Increase applicants' self-reliance and possible integration prospects : except for those whose applications are likely to be rejected, applicants should, as quickly as possible, be allowed to work and earn their own money, even whilst their applications are being processed. The time-limit for access to the labour market should therefore be reduced from no later than nine months to no later than six months from the lodging of the application. Further limiting the current wide discrepancies between Member States' rules on access to the labour market is also essential in order to reduce employment-related asylum-shopping and incentives for secondary movements. It is proposed that, once granted access to the labour market, applicants should be entitled to a common set of rights based on equal treatment with nationals of the Member State similarly as other third-country nationals who are working in the Union. It has been specifically stated that the right to equal treatment does not give rise to a right to reside in cases where the applicants' application for international protection has been rejected. Working conditions referred to in the proposal cover at least pay and dismissal, health and safety requirements at the workplace, working time and leave, taking into account collective agreements in force. The proposal makes it possible to limit equal treatment concerning education and vocational training to such education and training directly linked to a specific employment activity. The proposal also makes it possible to limit applicants' equal treatment with regard to family benefits and unemployment benefits . Implementation and monitoring : the Commission shall report on the application of this Directive to the European Parliament and to the Council within three years from its entry into force and every five years after that. Territorial provisions : the participation of the United Kingdom and Ireland will be determined in the course of the negotiations and in accordance with 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 (TEU) and the TFEU. Denmark shall not be subject to its application.
            • date: 2016-09-15T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
            • date: 2016-10-14T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3490*&MEET_DATE=14/10/2016 title: 3490
            • date: 2017-05-10T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0186&language=EN title: A8-0186/2017 summary: The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast). The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast: Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements : Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases. The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued. In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned , including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions. Specific reception conditions : Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care). Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family. Conditions of work and access to employment : Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices . Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made. It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation. Measures limiting the risk of absconding : Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities. Detention : detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation . The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately. In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained. In the same way, any detention or confinement of children , whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child. Integration measures : Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made. Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants. Procedural guarantees : the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law. In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection. Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes. Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence. Charter of Fundamental Rights : the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child. Assessment and reports : lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).
            • date: 2017-06-09T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3545*&MEET_DATE=09/06/2017 title: 3545
            links/Research document
            title
            Briefing
            url
            http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2016)593520
            other
            • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
            • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/migration-and-home-affairs_en title: Migration and Home Affairs commissioner: AVRAMOPOULOS Dimitris
            procedure/Legislative priorities
            • title: Joint Declaration 2017 url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2062000&l=en
            • title: Joint Declaration 2018 url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2063000&l=en
            procedure/Notes
            • 17/05/2018 Decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 69c)
            procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
            Old
            LIBE/8/07293
            New
            • LIBE/9/00171
            procedure/instrument
            Old
            Directive
            New
            • Directive
            • Repealing Directive 2013/33/EU 2008/0244(COD)
            procedure/legislative_priorities
              procedure/stage_reached
              Old
              Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
              New
              Awaiting committee decision
              procedure/subject
              Old
              • 7.10.06 Asylum, refugees, displaced persons; Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF)
              New
              7.10.06
              Asylum, refugees, displaced persons; Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF)
              procedure/summary
              • Repealing Directive 2013/33/EU
              procedure/legislative_priorities
                activities/7
                body
                CSL
                meeting_id
                3545
                docs
                url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3545*&MEET_DATE=09/06/2017 type: Debate in Council title: 3545
                council
                Transport, Telecommunications and Energy
                date
                2017-06-09T00:00:00
                type
                Council Meeting
                activities/6/docs/0/text
                • The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Sophia in ‘t VELD (ADLE, NL) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).

                  The committee recommended that Parliament adopt its position in first reading bearing in mind the opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it submitted amendments to the proposal for a recast:

                  Restrictions on reception conditions of asylum seekers in case of secondary movements: Members did not subscribe the Commission position, which envisaged a stricter stance towards applicants who try and move illegally to another Member State. They proposed to strengthen measures related to information given to applicants, including details of the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted, and the reduction of any benefits in such cases.

                  The report sets out, rather, the circumstances under which applicants can travel to another Member States legally, for example, for medical reasons pertaining to family. In such cases, Member States should supply the applicants concerned with a travel document limited to the purpose or duration needed for the reason for which it is issued. 

                  In any event, any restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and should be based on the decision by a judicial authority, which takes into account the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned, including any specific reception needs of applicants and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be provided with the possibility of an appeal or review against such decisions.

                  Specific reception conditions: Members recalled that the overall objective of the directive is to establish common standards for reception conditions to help to limit the secondary movements of applicants in the Union. They stressed that Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and an adequate standard of living for applicants. Due regard must also be given to applicants with specific reception needs, such as children, and applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, (including appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care). 

                  Members also amended the terminology used to set out the daily allowance which should ensure an adequate standard of living for applicants and not ‘dignified’ as stated in the proposal ensuring that applicants have access to the necessary food, clothing, housing, education, health care and social services for their well-being and that of their family.

                  Conditions of work and access to employment: Members wanted to see clear rules concerning applicants’ access to the labour market, so that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions, including sector restrictions, working time restrictions or unreasonable administrative formalities, that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Member States should also take effective steps to ensure that the entry of applicants for international protection into the labour market is not achieved through a lowering of applicable salaries, which could then lead to wage dumping practices. Members proposed particularly that access to the labour market should be provided to the applicant no later than two months from the date when the application for international protection was made.

                  It should be noted, however, that for reasons of labour market policies, and especially regarding youth unemployment levels, a vacancy could be filled, through preferential access, by nationals of the Member State concerned or by other Union citizens.

                  Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should be allowed to apply for an EU Blue Card under the relevant Union legislation. Applicants who have been granted access to the labour market should also be allowed to apply for a residence permit for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing under the relevant Union legislation.

                  Measures limiting the risk of absconding: Members set out a clearer framework for situations where there is a risk of an applicant absconding. Accordingly, where there are reasons to believe that an applicant is at serious risk of absconding, Member States may where necessary, proportionate and duly justified require applicants to report to the competent authorities in person, either immediately or at a future date, as frequently as necessary but not more than once a working day, in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. Applicants should also be able to appeal against decisions requiring them to report to the competent authorities.

                  Detention: detention should be adopted only as a measure of last resort and any decision imposing detention should contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons why they could not be applied effectively. Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy and the right to free legal assistance and representation. The detention shall not be punitive in nature. Where, as a result of the judicial review, detention is held to be unlawful, the applicant concerned shall be released immediately.

                  In addition, where detention would put at risk their physical and psychological integrity, applicants with specific reception needs shall not be detained.

                  In the same way, any detention or confinement of children, whether accompanied by family members or not, must be forbidden since it contravenes the best interests of the child.

                  Integration measures: Members recalled that language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned would increase self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society. It also constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all applicants from the date on which their application for international protection is made.

                  Member States shall use their best endeavours to provide adequate training on employment legislation and non-discrimination to applicants and to authorities, in order to avoid exploitation in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation, and to avoid discrimination. Members also provided for professional training for applicants.

                  Procedural guarantees: the report strengthened the procedural guarantees for applicants. Amongst other things, it proposed that legal advisers shall provide free legal assistance and representation or other suitably qualified persons as admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the applicants, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the applicant. Such persons may include non-governmental organisations accredited under national law.

                  In situations of disproportionate pressure, each Member State shall draw up a contingency plan setting out the planned measures to be taken to ensure an adequate reception of applicants for international protection.

                  Members proposed that necessary training be provided with adequate funding from the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund by means of national programmes.  Such training places should place particular importance on active identification of specific reception needs (the Age Gender and Diversity Approach) and adequate prevention and response activities with respect to sexual and gender-based violence and bias-motivated violence.

                  Charter of Fundamental Rights: the committee made a stronger link between the proposal and the Charter. Member States should apply the definition of ‘family member’ in accordance with the Charter and bear in mind different circumstances of dependency and the special attention to be accorded to the best interests of the child.

                  Assessment and reports: lastly, Members provided for more regular implementation reports for Parliament and Council (annual report rather than every three years).

                activities/6/docs
                • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0186&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A8-0186/2017
                activities/6/date
                Old
                2017-05-08T00:00:00
                New
                2017-05-10T00:00:00
                activities/6
                date
                2017-05-08T00:00:00
                body
                EP
                type
                Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
                committees
                procedure/stage_reached
                Old
                Awaiting committee decision
                New
                Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
                activities/4
                date
                2017-04-25T00:00:00
                body
                unknown
                type
                Committee decision to open interinstitutional negotiations with report adopted in committee
                activities/5
                date
                2017-04-25T00:00:00
                body
                EP
                type
                Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
                committees
                activities/1/committees/3/shadows/2/group
                Old
                S&D
                New
                ECR
                activities/1/committees/3/shadows/2/mepref
                Old
                4f1ac936b819f25efd00011b
                New
                53b2dab5b819f205b000007b
                activities/1/committees/3/shadows/2/name
                Old
                IOTOVA Iliana
                New
                HALLA-AHO Jussi
                committees/3/shadows/2/group
                Old
                S&D
                New
                ECR
                committees/3/shadows/2/mepref
                Old
                4f1ac936b819f25efd00011b
                New
                53b2dab5b819f205b000007b
                committees/3/shadows/2/name
                Old
                IOTOVA Iliana
                New
                HALLA-AHO Jussi
                activities/0/commission/0/DG/url
                Old
                http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/
                New
                http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/migration-and-home-affairs_en
                other/1/dg/url
                Old
                http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/
                New
                http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/migration-and-home-affairs_en
                activities/0
                date
                2016-07-13T00:00:00
                docs
                url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2016/0465/COM_COM(2016)0465_EN.pdf title: COM(2016)0465 type: Legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:52016PC0465:EN
                body
                EC
                type
                Legislative proposal published
                commission
                DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/ title: Migration and Home Affairs Commissioner: AVRAMOPOULOS Dimitris
                activities/0/body
                Old
                EP
                New
                EC
                activities/0/commission
                • DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/ title: Migration and Home Affairs Commissioner: AVRAMOPOULOS Dimitris
                activities/0/date
                Old
                2017-06-01T00:00:00
                New
                2016-07-13T00:00:00
                activities/0/docs
                • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2016/0465/COM_COM(2016)0465_EN.pdf celexid: CELEX:52016PC0465:EN type: Legislative proposal published title: COM(2016)0465
                activities/0/type
                Old
                Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
                New
                Legislative proposal published
                activities/0/docs/0/celexid
                CELEX:52016PC0465:EN
                activities/0/docs/0/celexid
                CELEX:52016PC0465:EN
                activities/4
                date
                2017-06-01T00:00:00
                body
                EP
                type
                Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
                activities/1/committees/2/date
                2017-01-31T00:00:00
                activities/1/committees/2/rapporteur
                • group: EPP name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz
                committees/2/date
                2017-01-31T00:00:00
                committees/2/rapporteur
                • group: EPP name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz
                activities/0/docs/0/celexid
                CELEX:52016PC0465:EN
                activities/0/docs/0/celexid
                CELEX:52016PC0465:EN
                activities/1/committees/3/shadows/2
                group
                S&D
                name
                PIRI Kati
                activities/3
                date
                2016-12-09T00:00:00
                body
                CSL
                type
                Council Meeting
                council
                Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
                meeting_id
                3508
                committees/3/shadows/2
                group
                S&D
                name
                PIRI Kati
                other/0
                body
                CSL
                type
                Council Meeting
                council
                Former Council configuration
                activities/2
                body
                CSL
                meeting_id
                3490
                docs
                url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3490*&MEET_DATE=14/10/2016 type: Debate in Council title: 3490
                council
                Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
                date
                2016-10-14T00:00:00
                type
                Council Meeting
                activities/0/docs/0/text
                • PURPOSE: to recast the Directive laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).

                  PROPOSE ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council.

                  ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council.

                  BACKGROUND: the Common European Asylum System is based on rules determining the Member State responsible for applicants for international protection, common standards for asylum procedures, reception conditions, the recognition and protection of beneficiaries of international protection.

                  Notwithstanding the significant progress that has been made in the development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), there are still notable differences between the Member States in the types of procedures used, the reception conditions provided to applicants, the recognition rates and the type of protection granted to beneficiaries of international protection. These divergences contribute to secondary movements and asylum shopping, create pull factors, and ultimately lead to an uneven distribution among the Member States of the responsibility to offer protection to those in need.

                  Recent large scale arrivals have shown that Europe needs an effective and efficient asylum system able to assure a fair and sustainable sharing of responsibility between Member States and to ensure the quality of the decisions made.

                  Against this backdrop, the Commission presented a first set of proposals to reform the Common European Asylum System delivering on three priorities identified in its Communication:

                  With the second package, the Commission is completing the reform of the Common European Asylum System by adopting four additional proposals:

                  1. a proposal replacing the Asylum Procedures Directive with a Regulation, harmonising the current disparate procedural arrangements in all Member States and creating a genuine common procedure;
                  2. a proposal replacing the Qualification Directive with a Regulation, setting uniform standards for the recognition of persons in need of protection and the rights granted to beneficiaries of international protection;
                  3. this proposal revising the Reception Conditions Directive;
                  4. a structured Union resettlement framework, moving towards a more managed approach to international protection within the EU.

                  CONTENT: the proposed Reception Conditions Directive provides for minimum harmonisation of standards for the reception of applicants for international protection in the EU. Reception conditions however continue to vary considerably between Member States both in terms of how the reception system is organised and in terms of the standards provided to applicants. 

                  This has contributed to secondary movements and has put pressure on certain Member States in particular.  

                  In view of this, this proposal aims to:

                  1. Further harmonisation of reception conditions in the EU: This will both ensure that the treatment of applicants is dignified across the EU, in accordance with fundamental rights and rights of the child, and to reduce secondary movements of migrants.

                  The main amendments of the new measure concern:

                  • scope: the Reception Conditions Directive continues to apply to all third-country nationals and stateless persons who make an application for international protection on the territory of any of the Member States, as long as they are allowed to remain on the territory as applicants and as soon as the application is made.  An exception is introduced for cases where an applicant is irregularly present in another Member State than the one in which he or she is required to be present. In this situation, he or she is not entitled to material reception conditions, schooling and education of minors as well as employment and vocational training. The proposal clarifies that applicants will however always be entitled to health care and to a dignified standard of living, in accordance with fundamental rights, to cover the applicant's subsistence and basic needs both in terms of physical safety, dignity and interpersonal relationships. However, in order to ensure respect for the fundamental rights of the child, Member States should provide minors with access to suitable educational activities pending the transfer to the Member State responsible.
                  • The proposal makes it clear that the right to a dignified treatment applies also in cases where a Member State, in duly justified cases, is exceptionally applying different standards of material reception conditions from the one required by the Reception Conditions Directive.
                  • the definition of family members: this is extended by including family relations which were formed after leaving the country of origin but before arrival on the territory of the Member State. This reflects the reality of migration today where applicants often stay for long periods of time outside their country of origin before reaching the EU, such as in refugee camps;
                  • indicators: the proposal requires Member States to take into account operational standards and indicators on reception conditions currently being developed by European Asylum Support Office;
                  • urgent situations: the proposal obliges Member States to draw up, and regularly update, contingency plans setting out the measures foreseen to be taken to ensure adequate reception of applicants in cases where the Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applicants. The proposal also requires the Member States to inform the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum whenever their contingency plan is activated;
                  • particular needs of certain applicants: the proposal clarifies that persons with special reception needs are persons who are in need of special guarantees in order to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations provided for in the Reception Conditions Directive, regardless of whether these persons are considered vulnerable. The proposal also includes more detailed rules for assessing, determining, documenting and addressing applicants' special reception needs as soon as possible and throughout the reception period (e.g. a doctor or a psychologists);
                  • provisions concerning the guardian of unaccompanied minors: the proposal introduces stricter time limits, within five working days from the moment the application was made, for the Member States to assign a guardian to represent and assist an unaccompanied minor.

                  2. Reducing reception-related incentives for secondary movements within the EU: to ensure an orderly management of migration flows, facilitate the determination of the Member State responsible and to prevent secondary movements, it is essential that the applicants remain in the Member State which is responsible for them and do not abscond. The introduction of more targeted restrictions to the applicants' freedom of movement and strict consequences when such restrictions are not complied with will contribute to more effective monitoring of the applicants' whereabouts.

                  Further harmonisation of possibilities to assign a specific place of residence to applicants, to impose reporting obligations and to provide material reception conditions only in kind is also necessary to create a more predictable situation for applicants, to ensure that they are accounted for regardless of which Member State they are present in and to deter them from absconding.

                  This applies in particular in three situations namely where:

                  • the applicant did not make an application for international protection in the Member State of first irregular entry or legal entry;
                  • the applicant has absconded from the Member State in which he or she is required to be present
                  • where the applicant has been sent back to the Member State where he or she is required to be present after having absconded to another Member State.

                  The proposal requires Member States to inform applicants, using a common template, as soon as possible and at the latest when they lodge their application, of any benefits and obligations, which applicants must comply with in relation to reception conditions, including the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted (for example, if they abscond).

                  The proposal underlines that:

                  • all decisions restricting an applicant's freedom of movement need to be based on the particular situation of the person concerned, taking into account any special reception needs of applicants and the principle of proportionality;
                  • Member States should only provide applicants with a travel document when serious humanitarian reasons arise. Travel documents should not be issued outside of these exceptional circumstances.

                  Other measures are included such as:

                  • enlarging material reception conditions to include sanitary items;
                  • limit daily allowances in certain circumstances;
                  • altering the form of material reception conditions. These may be scaled back or altered where the applicant has: seriously breached the rules of the accommodation centre or behaved in a seriously violent way; not complied with the obligation to apply for international protection in the Member State of first irregular entry or of legal entry;
                  • in case an applicant has been assigned a specific place of residence but has not complied with this obligation, and where there is a continued risk that the applicant may abscond, the applicant may be detained in order to ensure the fulfilment of the obligation to reside in a specific place. All the guarantees already provided for in the current Reception Conditions Directive regarding detention remain unchanged.

                  3. Increase applicants' self-reliance and possible integration prospects: except for those whose applications are likely to be rejected, applicants should, as quickly as possible, be allowed to work and earn their own money, even whilst their applications are being processed. The time-limit for access to the labour market should therefore be reduced from no later than nine months to no later than six months from the lodging of the application.

                  Further limiting the current wide discrepancies between Member States' rules on access to the labour market is also essential in order to reduce employment-related asylum-shopping and incentives for secondary movements.

                  It is proposed that, once granted access to the labour market, applicants should be entitled to a common set of rights based on equal treatment with nationals of the Member State similarly as other third-country nationals who are working in the Union. It has been specifically stated that the right to equal treatment does not give rise to a right to reside in cases where the applicants' application for international protection has been rejected.

                  Working conditions referred to in the proposal cover at least pay and dismissal, health and safety requirements at the workplace, working time and leave, taking into account collective agreements in force.

                  The proposal makes it possible to limit equal treatment concerning education and vocational training to such education and training directly linked to a specific employment activity. The proposal also makes it possible to limit applicants' equal treatment with regard to family benefits and unemployment benefits.

                  Implementation and monitoring: the Commission shall report on the application of this Directive to the European Parliament and to the Council within three years from its entry into force and every five years after that.

                  Territorial provisions: the participation of the United Kingdom and Ireland will be determined in the course of the negotiations and in accordance with 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 (TEU) and the TFEU.

                  Denmark shall not be subject to its application.

                activities/1
                date
                2016-09-15T00:00:00
                body
                EP
                type
                Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
                committees
                procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
                LIBE/8/07293
                procedure/stage_reached
                Old
                Preparatory phase in Parliament
                New
                Awaiting committee decision
                committees/3/date
                2016-09-05T00:00:00
                committees/3/rapporteur
                • group: ALDE name: IN 'T VELD Sophia
                committees/3/shadows
                • group: EPP name: POGLIESE Salvatore Domenico
                • group: S&D name: IOTOVA Iliana
                • group: GUE/NGL name: ERNST Cornelia
                • group: Verts/ALE name: VALERO Bodil
                • group: ENF name: LEBRETON Gilles
                committees/1/date
                2016-09-09T00:00:00
                committees/1/rapporteur
                • group: S&D name: BENIFEI Brando
                activities/0/commission/0
                DG
                Commissioner
                AVRAMOPOULOS Dimitris
                other/0
                body
                EC
                dg
                commissioner
                AVRAMOPOULOS Dimitris
                activities
                • date: 2016-07-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2016/0465/COM_COM(2016)0465_EN.pdf celexid: CELEX:52016PC0465:EN type: Legislative proposal published title: COM(2016)0465 body: EC type: Legislative proposal published commission:
                committees
                • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Foreign Affairs committee: AFET
                • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Employment and Social Affairs committee: EMPL
                • body: EP responsible: None committee_full: Legal Affairs committee: JURI
                • body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee: LIBE
                links
                other
                  procedure
                  reference
                  2016/0222(COD)
                  instrument
                  Directive
                  legal_basis
                  Treaty on the Functioning of the EU TFEU 078-p2
                  stage_reached
                  Preparatory phase in Parliament
                  summary
                  Repealing Directive 2013/33/EU
                  subtype
                  Recast
                  title
                  Reception of applicants for international protection. Recast
                  type
                  COD - Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure)
                  subject
                  7.10.06 Asylum, refugees, displaced persons; Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF)