2019/2206(INI) Implementation of the Dublin III Regulation
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2020/12/14
Lead committee dossier:
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2020/12/14
Progress: Awaiting committee decision
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | LIBE |
KELLER Fabienne ( Renew)
|
TOBÉ Tomas ( EPP),
BARTOLO Pietro ( S&D),
TARDINO Annalisa ( ID),
CARÊME Damien ( Verts/ALE),
JAKI Patryk ( ECR),
ERNST Cornelia ( GUE/NGL)
|
| Committee Opinion | FEMM |
REGNER Evelyn ( S&D)
|
María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS ( RE),
Christine ANDERSON ( ID),
Alice KUHNKE ( Verts/ALE),
Elena KOUNTOURA ( GUE/NGL),
Frances FITZGERALD ( PPE),
Margarita DE LA PISA CARRIÓN ( ECR)
|
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Events
2020/12/14
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
2020/07/17
EP - Specific opinion
Documents
2020/07/08
EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2020/06/15
EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2019/12/19
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2019/12/04
EP - REGNER Evelyn (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in FEMM
2019/12/02
EP - KELLER Fabienne (Renew) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
Documents
Activities
- Fabienne KELLER
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Pedro SILVA PEREIRA
Plenary Speeches (0)
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 290 |
2019/2206(INI)
2020/07/08
LIBE
290 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 3 — having regard to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 18, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 12 — having regard to the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights related to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, and in particular Sharifi v. Austria of 5 December 2013 (Chamber judgment), Mohammadi v. Austria of 3 July 2014 (Chamber judgment), Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece of 21 October 2014 (Chamber judgment), and Tarakhel v. Switzerland of 4 November 2014 (Grand Chamber judgment), and ECtHR - M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece [GC]; Application No. 30696/09, Judgement of 21 November 2011, related to Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (Dublin II)
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Stresses that taking responsibility for the EU's external borders is key to ensuring the safety of EU citizens;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Stresses that the principle of solidarity must be balanced with the principle of responsibility, and that reform of the Dublin system cannot be based on the automatic redistribution of applicants within the EU, as that would further increase pressure on national asylum systems and encourage illegal migration and human trafficking and smuggling; considers, too, that compulsory relocation is an ineffective instrument;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 d (new) 1d. Considers a balanced and harmonised migration policy, including asylum, at European level to be necessary, but that it should be based on consensus and a balance of responsibility and solidarity, in line with the June 2018 European Council conclusions;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that ad hoc agreements are no substitute for a harmonised and sustainable policy at EU level; deplores the fact that efforts to overhaul the Dublin III Regulation have been blocked in the Council, in spite of the well-documented failings of the Regulation; takes the view that the blocking might be interpreted as a violation of the principle of mutual sincere cooperation between the EU institutions as set out in Article 13(2) TEU, also in view of the fact that the Council has always sought unanimous agreement even though a qualified majority would suffice; draws attention to the adoption by the European Parliament on 6 November 2017 of the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) and calls on the Commission and the Council to take up Parliament's call, as a matter of urgency, for a sustainable, human and solidarity- based policy for the distribution of responsibilities at EU level, in line with the aforementioned report;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that ad hoc agreements are no substitute for a harmonised and
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Stresses th
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that ad hoc agreements are no substitute for a harmonised and sustainable
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 12 — having regard to the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights related to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, and in particular Sharifi v. Austria of 5 December 2013 (Chamber judgment), Mohammadi v. Austria of 3 July 2014 (Chamber judgment), Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece of 21 October 2014 (Chamber judgment),
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that ad hoc agreements are no substitute for a harmonised and sustainable policy at EU level;
Amendment 111 #
2a. Stresses that solutions under the European Asylum System must guarantee an adequate level of security and should be based primarily on the principle of Member States' responsibility for national asylum systems; stresses, at the same time, the need for a comprehensive approach to migration, taking into account, among other things, the issue of returns;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Restates its full support to the position adopted by the European Parliament on the Dublin IV recast that was proposing a system based on a fair sharing of responsibility through a permanent and automatic relocation mechanism without thresholds;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 b (new) Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the crisis management tool provided for in Article 33 did not provide effective support to the Member States
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the crisis management tool provided for in Article 33 did not provide effective support to the Member States, nor did it offer a response to the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis; notes that Article 33 has actually never been applied, not even during the migration crisis in 2015-16; considers that a solidarity-based crisis management mechanism, endowed with a financial instrument managed by the Commission, should be established to ensure continuity of the right of asylum in the EU under the best possible conditions;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 19 a (new) — having regard to the report of the European Asylum Support Office of June 2020, entitled ‘Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the European Union’,
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the crisis management tool provided for in Article 33 did not provide effective support to the Member States, nor did it offer a response to the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the crisis management tool provided for in Article 33 did not provide effective support to the Member States, nor did it offer a response to the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis; considers that a solidarity-based crisis management mechanism, endowed with a financial instrument
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the crisis management tool provided for in Article 33 did not provide effective support to the Member States, nor did it offer a response to the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis; considers that a solidarity-based crisis management mechanism, endowed with a financial instrument managed by the Commission, should be established to ensure continuity of
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Points out that according to a report by the European Court of Auditors, relocation in the period 2015-2017 was an expensive and ineffective solution; stresses that the compulsory distribution of migrants among Member States as part of the EU's migration policy is not a solution and that the relocation mechanism merely contributes to increasing migratory pressure and encourages migrants to try to reach the EU illegally with the help of human smugglers, and that they can often become victims of human trafficking, and in this context draws attention to the risk to human health and life;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Considers that such a mechanism should allow for the participation of civil society organization providing professional assistance to people in need of international protection during the assessment of their asylum application, particularly of legal nature;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Member States to make use of the discretionary clause in Article 17 when exceptional circumstances so warrant, for example to relocate asylum seekers currently living in the Greek hotspots and on the island of Lampedusa in an atmosphere of extreme tension and to provide decent reception conditions; Takes note of the peaceful protests and expresses solidarity towards the resident population of some Greek and Italian islands, which are currently facing massive migratory influx;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Member States to make use of the discretionary clause in Article 17 when exceptional circumstances
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Member States to make use of the discretionary clause in Article 17 when exceptional circumstances so warrant, for example to relocate asylum seekers currently living in the Greek hotspots in an atmosphere of extreme tension and to provide decent reception conditions with sufficient access to physical and mental health supports;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 27 a (new) — having regard to the European Parliament Resolution of 12 April 2016 on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to Migration (2015/2095(INI));
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Member States to
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Member States to
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Member States to make use of the discretionary clause in Article 17
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Takes the view that provisions on family unity, which are the first in the hierarchy of criteria, should be efficiently implemented, and that provisions on dependent persons (article 16) and the discretionary clauses (article 17) should be used more widely to support family unity;
Amendment 135 #
4a. Urges the Member States, with the support of the Commission, to structure the Dublin units efficiently and to boost their human resources with the aim of improving the Dublin procedures, particularly those dealing with family reunification;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. In the absence of a permanent solidarity mechanism, supports the expanded use of discretionary clauses of Article 17 as a solidarity tool for responsibility sharing in particular in situations of large number of spontaneous arrivals and in the specific context of sea arrivals and disembarkation procedures;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 27 b (new) — having regard to the ECJ judgement of the 2 April 2020 on the joined cases C-715/17, C-718/17 and C- 719/17 Commission v Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Urges the introduction, in accordance with international law, of fast- track Dublin procedures at the main points of irregular arrival in the EU, in European reception centres, in order to process asylum applications swiftly, assess their merits, determine the Member State responsible and, where appropriate, return asylum seekers without an unnecessarily prolonged detention period; Stresses that children shall not be detained for immigration purposes in line with the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrant of 19 September 2016 and calls on the EU Member States to work out alternatives to detention, such as community-based placements for children;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Urges the introduction, in accordance with international law, of fast- track Dublin procedures at the main points of irregular arrival in the EU, in European reception centres, in order to process asylum applications swiftly, assess their merits, determine the Member State responsible and, where appropriate, return asylum seekers without an unnecessarily prolonged detention period; stresses in this connection the need to make sufficient financial and human resources available to implement fast-track Dublin procedures;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Urges the introduction, in accordance with international law, of fast- track Dublin procedures that increase operability, efficiency and expediency, at the main points of irregular arrival in the EU, in European reception centres, in order to process asylum applications swiftly, assess their merits, determine the Member State responsible and, where appropriate, return asylum seekers without an unnecessarily prolonged detention period;
Amendment 145 #
5. Urges the introduction, in accordance with international law, of fast- track Dublin procedures
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Urges the introduction, in accordance with international law, of fast- track Dublin procedures at the main points of irregular arrival in the EU, in European reception centres, in order to process asylum applications swiftly, assess their merits, determine the Member State responsible and, where appropriate, return asylum seekers
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Urges the introduction, in accordance with international law, of
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that in a future EU migration system, the majority of asylum-seekers’ applications should be made at the Union’s external borders, or in the transit zone of a Member State prior to a decision on the entry of the applicant; underlines that such a system would make Dublin procedures more efficient;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. With this regards, recalls that setting up disembarkation platforms outside the EU to carry out an accurate triage and register legitimate asylum applications could prevent migrants to undertake dangerous journeys across the Mediterranean sea;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 28 a (new) — having regard to the Australian migration model;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses that family reunification processes for children on the move should be enhanced;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights the
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights the
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights the significant operational backing for Dublin procedures provided by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in the hotspots; calls on the Commission and the Member States to facilitate the work of EASO staff by allowing interviews in a language other than that of the country in which they are conducted;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights the significant operational
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights the significant operational backing for
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights the significant operational backing for Dublin procedures provided by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in the hotspots; calls on the
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Urges adequate organisation and staffing of the European Dublin units to streamline the completion of Dublin- related procedures, particularly those related to establishing family links and the application of other criteria which link an asylum-seeker to a particular Member State;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to monitor that interviews are conducted in the language of the asylum seeker or in a language that the applicant is reasonably supposed to understand;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital -A (new) -A. whereas the implementation of the Dublin regulation is closely linked to the implementation of other files of the European asylum and migration policy; whereas these pieces of legislations and policies impact the efficiency of the Dublin regulation and therefore need to be considered in its evaluation;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implement the Dublin III Regulation, including the protection of children, victims of trafficking and the most vulnerable; Calls on Member States to improve cross- border cooperation among law- enforcement authorities to prevent child trafficking and sexual exploitation of children, as well as to prevent the risk of absconding of children, ensuring a zero tolerance policy against missing children in migration;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implement the Dublin III Regulation, including the protection of children, victims of trafficking and the most vulnerable; stresses that the protection of fundamental rights must not result in an increase in the trafficking of children or vulnerable people;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implement the Dublin III Regulation, including the protection of children, among them unaccompanied minors, and victims of trafficking and the most vulnerable;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implement the Dublin III Regulation, including the protection of children, victims of trafficking and
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implement the Dublin III Regulation, including the protection of children, victims of trafficking and the most vulnerable, such as LGBTI persons;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that the protection of
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implement the Dublin III Regulation, including the protection of children, victims of trafficking and othe
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Notes that, as set out in Article 28, detention of asylum seekers under the Dublin procedures may take place only as a last resort, only if it complies with the proportionality principle and no alternative and less coercive measure can be efficiently applied in order to ensure the transfer procedures can be carried out, and if there is a serious risk of absconding;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Recalls that asylum seekers have the right to be fully informed on the procedures; regrets that the level of information provided to asylum seekers differs consistently from one Member state to another; urges the Member states to guarantee that minors have tailored, child-friendly information and specific support; stresses that providing legal assistance and interpretation are key to ensure applicants' right to information;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Points out the worrying human cost of the Dublin regulation on asylum- seekers whereby transfers to the first country of entry can create severe anxiety for asylum-seekers whose mental health is already weakened by the traumas from what they have experienced back home and on the journey, as well as often poor reception conditions in the first Member State of entry;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Reiterates that the Dublin III Impact Assessment study undertaken by the EPRS notes that non-refoulement and human rights abuses are reason enough to suspend a transfer even when the destination country does not present systemic problems;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7а. Considers that a balance should be maintained between the rights and the responsibilities of asylum seekers, without allowing for any privileged treatment towards EU citizens;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Notes with concern that LGBTI persons can be subjected to discrimination and violence in countries deemed ‘safe’, thus rendering their claims for asylum entirely legitimate in such circumstances; further notes that fast-track procedures and list of 'safe countries' should not unduly affect asylum claims of vulnerable groups, such as LGBTI persons; recalls that the application of fast-track procedures and lists of safe countries should be consistent with the principle of non-refoulement and fundamental rights of the most vulnerable;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Points out that transfers of asylum seekers, and in particular vulnerable people, minors and families can result in violations of their human rights; urges Member states to properly assess the risks to which applicants would be exposed in the Member States of destination; stresses in particular that transfers must be carried out in a way that under no circumstances exposes individuals to a risk of refoulement, irrespective of whether the asylum system of return is affected by systemic deficiencies;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 c (new) 7c. Deplores that Member states resort too often to the detention of applicants waiting to be transferred; urges Member states to make concrete efforts to find valid alternatives to detention;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion and to harmonise the standard of proof required; calls on the Member States and the Commission to protect the best interests of children and to clarify the criteria for keeping children
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion and to harmonise the standard of proof required, while not expanding current rules on family reunification; calls on the Member States and the Commission to protect the best interests of children and to clarify the criteria for keeping children in detention;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion and to harmonise the standard of proof required; calls on the Member States and the Commission to
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion and to harmonise the standard of proof required; recalls that the best interest of the child should be the primary consideration in all Dublin procedures according to the regulation; notes that good practices are developed in certain Member States, such as the use of specialised staff for unaccompanied minors or the multidisciplinary approach to determine the age; yet, is deeply concerned that the appointment of a representative to assist unaccompanied minors with respect to Dublin procedures is often delayed or not assured in many Member States due to practical challenges; also notes that the representatives in some countries are insufficiently informed about Dublin procedures and that unaccompanied minors lack child-friendly support; calls on the Member States and the Commission to better protect the best interests of children;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Stresses that the right to asylum should be about providing safe protection and basic services, not about independently choosing the best place to live; the external borders should therefore be protected even more effectively and procedures should be introduced to ensure that foreign nationals who require protection are differentiated as quickly as possible from those who only plan to use asylum procedures to enter the EU and move to other Member States and who should be returned immediately to their countries of origin or transit;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls on Member States to adequately train asylum officers regarding the needs of the most vulnerable, such as LGBTI persons, and to ensure interviews are conducted in settings favourable to the full disclosure of crucial information to prove the validity of the claim; notes with concern that some LGBTI asylum-seekers may not feel initially comfortable with disclosing their sexual orientation or gender identity because of previous negative interactions with authorities in the country of origin;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Stresses that Dublin transfers must be carried out in a way that under no circumstances exposes individuals to a risk of refoulement or inhumane or degrading treatment, irrespective of whether the asylum system of the country of return is affected by systemic deficiencies;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Regrets that Member states do not proactively contribute to the identification and verification of the family links; deplores that the burden of proof is almost entirely left to the applicants;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Stresses that transfers under the Dublin Regulation must never expose people to the risk of refoulement;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Detention shall be as short as possible and shall be for no longer than the time reasonably necessary to fulfil the required administrative procedures with due diligence until the transfer under this Regulation is carried out; stresses that in the absence of harmonised criteria for determining the risk of absconding, Member States have adopted divergent and sometime controversial criteria; calls on the Member States and the Commission to clarify the criteria for keeping asylum seekers in detention;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Points out that the narrow definition of family contributes to the lack of compliance with the hierarchy of criteria and the dysfunctionality of the system;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 c (new) 8c. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure an adequate verification of the best interest of the child, avoiding that the complexity of the procedures results in the failure to implement this principle, in particular for the unaccompanied minors of age between 16 and 18;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 d (new) 8d. Regrets that Member states apply different interpretation of the best interest of the child; calls therefore the Commission to clarify the definition in line with EU legislation and to identify which family reunification possibilities, security and safety considerations, background information should be taken into consideration;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 e (new) 8e. Urges the Member States and the Commission to clarify that detention is never in the best interest of the child and that a minor should never be detained because of the migratory status of their family; calls to expand the sources used for the monitoring and identification of unlawful practices to include information provided by international and non- governmental organizations where it is reliable, up-to-date and specific;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 f (new) 8f. Deplores that insufficient identification mechanisms and erroneous methods of age assessment often further exacerbate the situation of minors, causing delays or affecting negatively the outcome of the Dublin procedure; calls for an harmonized age assessment that do not endanger minors' rights, health and psychological well-being;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 3 Simplify procedures
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, generating considerable human, material and financial costs; deplores, however, the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out, a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between Member States which actively undermines the principle of EU solidarity and directly contributes to the overburdening of systems in certain Member States; regards efforts to combat secondary movements as essential in order to reduce the number of transfer requests; proposes that the conditions which trigger transfer
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, generating considerable human, material and financial costs;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 3 — having regard to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 18, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, generating considerable human, material
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, generating considerable human, material and financial costs, mainly for Member States of first arrival; deepl
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, generating considerable human, material and financial costs; deplores, however, the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out, a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between Member States; regards efforts to
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, generating considerable human, material and financial costs; deplores, however, the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out, a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between Member States;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, generating considerable human, material and financial costs;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, generating considerable human, material and financial costs;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, generating considerable human, material and financial costs; deplores, however, the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out, a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between Member States;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Highlight the important body of ECtHR and CJEU case law in the recent years that clarified the admissible grounds for denying Dublin transfers, in particular any source of risk to the individual; notes in particular an increasing amount of decisions from European and nationals courts to suspend transfers to Member States where an asylum seeker would be unfairly denied international protection (indirect refoulement) or would be denied their rights in the Dublin procedure; deplores that asylum seekers are victims of inhumane or degrading treatment in certain Member States;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Notes that free legal counselling for asylum seekers generates a significant financial and administrative cost within Member States of first arrival, thus reducing the availability of such services for eligible country nationals;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9а. Points out that since different rules apply to movement within the Schengen Area and outside the Schengen Area, the measures taken against secondary movements should also differ;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas the increase in the number of Dublin procedures in 2016- 2017 compared to 2014 is clearly linked to migrants who arrived in Europe during the crisis moving to their destination countries, which places a significant administrative burden on some Member States; points out that this results not only from the architecture of the Dublin system, but above all from differences in integration and social policy between Member States;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Notes that shortages in terms of structural organisation, resources and functioning of national asylum authority contributed to delay Dublin procedures and hindered the application of the Regulation; notes that while most countries entrusted one specialised authority for asylum, some Member States have chosen to separate the responsibility between different authorities, creating in certain cases practical complexities for asylum seekers and divergences in the implementation of the regulation;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Regrets that Member States carrying out mass regularisations stimulate dangerous secondary movements of illegal migrants hoping to obtain legal status and that such measures represent a potential pull factor for further migration;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 c (new) 9c. Stresses that the efficiency of Dublin procedures also depends on the quality and size of staff in each national asylum authority; notes important gaps between asylum authorities in terms of number of staff per asylum applicants; stresses that national Dublin Units are understaffed while facing significant increase in their workload;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 d (new) 9d. Stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between Member States; notes that “take back” requests have been the dominant form of Dublin procedures in recent years, meaning that most persons placed in a Dublin procedure had already applied for asylum in another Member State; regards efforts to combat secondary movements as essential in order to reduce the number of transfer requests; stresses that the strict application of the “irregular entry” criterion puts a disproportionate burden on first-entry countries, who often lack resources and capacities to host and register asylum seekers; recalls that the time limits at each stages of the Dublin procedure are meant to keep the procedure short and enable fast access to the asylum procedure; notes that there are still a lack of clarity and variations between the Member States for the calculation of time limits and the point at which the clock starts for each procedure; proposes that the conditions which trigger transfer procedures be clarified and harmonised;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that in some cases
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that in some cases the rules on transfer of responsibility under Dublin III undermine the efficiency of asylum procedures and the carrying-out of transfers and contribute to the increase in the number of secondary movements by encouraging asylum-seekers to remain outside the system; calls on the Commission to revise the rules, in order to give Member States sufficient time to carry out transfers and do away with transfer of responsibility in cases where an asylum seeker absconds; also asks the Commission to plan a permanent mechanism for nullifying asylum applications submitted by applicants who fail to comply with their obligations or who submit multiple asylum applications;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that in some cases the rules on transfer of responsibility under Dublin III undermine the efficiency of asylum procedures and the carrying-out of transfers and contribute to the increase in the number of secondary movements by encouraging asylum-seekers to remain outside the system;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Stresses that further harmonisation of the Member States´ asylum systems is key to a functioning Dublin III regulation and preventing secondary movements; calls on the Commission to ensure that treatment of asylum seekers is equal across the EU in relative terms;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection with Dublin procedures, in particular in the hotspots,
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. C
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection with Dublin procedures, in particular in the hotspots, would simplify the process of obtaining asylum and improve decision- making; calls on the Member States to improve the information made available to asylum seekers on the complex Dublin procedures, to ensure that it is clear and accessible to everyone; stresses the importance of solutions to prevent the submission of multiple applications for international protection;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection with Dublin procedures
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Stresses that the quality and amount of information provided to the applicants along the Dublin procedures is far from being satisfactory, varies significantly between countries, and in some cases within countries; notes that different factors affect the compliance the right of information, such as the quality and clarity of information, the access to an interpreter, the availability of translated documents, the access to information in due time; recalls that the right to information according to article 4 of the regulation is essential regarding the complex nature of Dublin procedures and to guarantee the access to a fair examination of an asylum application in the EU; underlines that gaps in this field can be related to a lack of resources but also results from deliberate policy choices in certain countries; calls on the Member States to improve the information made available to asylum seekers, to ensure that it is clear and accessible to everyone;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas early 2020, about 855,000 asylum applications were still pending in the EU+;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Reminds Member States that EU legislation requires them to provide legal assistance and make representation available on request during appeal procedures; notes with concern that some specific issues at national level remain, such as remote asylum centres having limited access to alternative representatives, low financial compensation for legal assistance, lack of adequate facilities for preparatory and private interviews and legal aid not adequately provided to applicants in detention centres;
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Calls on the Commission to evaluate EU migration policy, including any push and pull factors in order to prevent an overload of the Dublin system; Stresses that the EU should, as part of a coherent “Africa Strategy”, resume the discussion about regional disembarkation platforms on both sides of the Mediterranean where asylum seekers can be received safely and their claims assessed in an efficient, dignified and humane way;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Calls on the Member States to increase the resources necessary to make Dublin III operational, particularly the number of asylum officers; calls on the European Commission to increase the funds available for the provision of legal assistance, especially funding for civil society professionals offering legal assistance to people in need of international protection during the Dublin procedure;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 4 A
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 4 Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 4 A
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12.
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12.
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Stresses that the principle of a single asylum application in the EU is consistently flouted, a state of affairs at odds with the very purpose of the Dublin III Regulation; considers that the competent national authorities should share their relevant information on a European database such as Eurodac, in order to speed up procedures and prevent multiple asylum applications, while protecting personal data;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Stresses that the principle of a single asylum application in the EU is consistently flouted, a state of affairs at odds with the very purpose of the Dublin III Regulation;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas children account for almost half of the asylum requests filed in the EU;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Stresses that the principle of a single asylum application in the EU is consistently flouted, a state of affairs at odds with the very purpose of the Dublin III Regulation; considers that the competent national authorities should share their relevant information, above all as regards the granting and rejection of asylum applications, on a European database such as Eurodac, in order to speed
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12.
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Notes that the rate of protection for asylum seekers varies greatly between Member States for certain nationalities; considers that a harmonisation of procedures, which should include also a common list of safe countries of origin and a shared country-risk
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Notes that the rate of protection for asylum seekers varies greatly between Member States for certain nationalities; considers that a common list of safe countries and a shared country-risk analysis, or at least greater convergence, would reduce these disparities, and thus also the number of secondary movements; stresses that the return of persons not eligible for asylum – who are in the majority at EU level – is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of the Dublin III Regulation;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Notes that the rate of protection for asylum seekers varies greatly between Member States for certain nationalities; considers that a common list of safe countries and regions and a shared country/region-risk analysis, or at least greater convergence, would reduce these disparities, and thus also the number of secondary movements; stresses that the return of persons not eligible for asylum is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of the Dublin III Regulation;
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Notes that the rate of protection for asylum seekers varies greatly between Member States for certain nationalities
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas there were 145 000 decisions on Dublin requests issued in 2019;
Amendment 250 #
13. Notes that the rate of protection for asylum seekers varies greatly between Member States for certain nationalities; considers that
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Regrets that the European Parliament is currently blocking the reform of the return directive;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14.
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Takes the view that closer cooperation between national asylum and law enforcement authorities is needed, in order to share information and streamline transfers
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Takes the view that closer cooperation between national asylum authorities is needed, in order to share information and streamline transfers; proposes that EASO be given the task of drawing up enhanced governance arrangements for the application of the Dublin III Regulation, including a monthly operational dialogue between national authorities, and a platform for the exchange and sharing of information and best practices; notes that the non-coordinated use of the Dublin Units prevents the Dublin III Regulation to function efficiently;
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Takes the view that closer cooperation between national asylum authorities is needed, in order to share information and streamline transfers and above all to prevent abuses such as asylum shopping; proposes that EASO be given the task of drawing up enhanced governance arrangements for the application of the Dublin III Regulation, including a monthly operational dialogue between national authorities, and a platform for the exchange and sharing of information and best practices;
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14.
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Takes the view that
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to include, among the sources used to monitor implementation of the Regulation, reliable, up-to-date information provided by international organisations and NGOs, particularly in order to identify possible illegal practices;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A b (new) Ab. whereas in the recent years a significant new trend was an increase in the number of applications lodged by third-country nationals who travel visa- free or with a short-term visa to enter the Schengen area; whereas in 2019 the number of applications lodged by third- country nationals who travelled visa-free accounted for one-quarter of all applications; whereas the rate of protection of these third-country nationals is often low while the volume of application is high; whereas visa waiver or short-term visa also represent a regular and safe path to enter the EU for third- country nationals eligible to international protection;
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Notes that some two-thirds of asylum applications are submitted by nationals of
Amendment 265 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Notes that some two-thirds of asylum applications are submitted by nationals of safe countries who have arrived in the EU on a visa or visa waiver; considers that these manifestly unfounded applications contribute to the overloading of asylum systems; calls on the Commission and the Member States to make asylum and visa policies more consistent and further evaluate the EU´s visa policy in order to reduce the number of unfounded asylum applications;
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Notes that some two-thirds of asylum applications are submitted by nationals of safe countries who have arrived in the EU on a visa or visa waiver; considers that these manifestly unfounded applications contribute to the overloading of asylum systems; calls on the Commission and the Member States to make asylum and visa policies more consistent, bearing in mind the specific nature of the country concerned;
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Notes that some two-thirds of asylum applications are submitted by nationals of safe countries who have arrived in the EU on a visa or visa waiver; considers that these manifestly unfounded applications and most of the times appeals contribute to the overloading of asylum systems; calls on the Commission and the Member States to make asylum and visa policies more consistent;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Recalls that manifestly unfounded applications generate a detrimental financial and administrative burden, in particular for Member States of first arrival;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 b (new) 15b. Notes that asylum systems are vulnerable to frauds and that further measures are needed to ensure that financial and human resources are allocated to protect third country nationals who are genuinely in need of international protection;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A c (new) Ac. whereas in the recent years the main countries of origin of asylum seekers in the EU+ are Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, countries torn by civil war, violence and conflict; whereas in 2019, three countries of origin accounted for one-quarter of all applications for international protection in EU+, naming Syria, Afghanistan, and Venezuela;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 c (new) 15c. Expresses concerns toward age- cheating and falsification schemes among asylum-seekers;
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16.
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Proposes that EASO be given an expanded role in analysing the flows of and pathways taken by asylum seekers, in order to better anticipate and understand pressures on asylum systems and to make the Dublin III Regulation become more efficient;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Proposes that EASO be given an expanded role in
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Proposes that EASO be given a
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Urges the Commission and the Council to work towards convergence in the
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Urges the Commission and the
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Considers that the implementation of the Dublin regulation is not effective as the primary objectives are not met, i.e. a swift and fair determination of the Member States responsible for an application to international protection; recalls that significant gaps of implementation are identified for a number of Dublin provisions; stresses that the regulation is highly inefficient with regard to the cost of implementation compared to the efficiency of the regulation;
Amendment 285 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Stresses the importance of drawing up preventive action plans by the Member States, with the support and coordination of the Commission, that will include bilateral agreements with third countries as part of the tools aimed at addressing particular pressure on a Member State's asylum system, allowing for better preparedness in the event of a potential asylum crisis situation;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Urges the Council to find a sustainable solution and take the necessary steps to adopt a position on the Dublin Recast Regulation by qualified majority;
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 b (new) 17b. Proposes that a fairer system of allocation be a priority for any reform of the Dublin system while keeping the protection of fundamental rights of applicants at the centre of the functioning of the solidarity mechanism;
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18.
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Deplores the fact that the Commission has still not published its Article 46 assessment report; calls on the Commission to
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the lack of an automatic mandatory redistribution mechanism for applicants for international protection within the European Union has meant that one-third of the Member States
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18a. Calls on the European Commission and Member States to consult non-governmental organisations, including migrant and refugee organisations representing persons subject to the Dublin regulation;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 3 — having regard to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 18, 19 and
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas one-third of the Member States
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas one-third of the Member States currently
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas the criteria for establishing the responsibility of a Member State for an asylum application include, in hierarchical order, the family unit; the issuance of residence permits or visas; irregular entry or stay, and visa- waived entry; where none of those grounds applies, the Member state in which an asylum application was first made becomes the Member state responsible under Article 3(2);
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas several “first-entry” Member States in the Mediterranean, Greece, Italy, Malta, Cyprus and Spain, received a large part of first time applications, in particular during the 2015-16 crisis; whereas a strong burden is put on first-entry countries to determine the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection in accordance to the Dublin regulation;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas the Dublin regulation is based on the core assumption that asylum seekers are afforded equal rights across Member States and that each claim gets a fair examination, wherever the claim is lodged in the EU; whereas this is far from being a reality in the EU;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas at EU level, most asylum applications are unjustified and are rejected following a final court decision1 a taken in application of the rule of law; _________________ 1aEUROSTAT: 'Decisions on asylum applications in the EU in 2019', 27 April 2020
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas some Member States such as Italy and Greece were severely impacted by the disproportionate migratory flows;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B b (new) Bb. whereas in 2018, Germany recorded the largest number of applications (184,180, or 28% of the total), followed by France (120,425 applications, or 19%), Greece (66,695 applications, or 11%), Italy (59,950 applications, or 10%) and Spain(52,700 applications, or 9%);
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B c (new) Bc. whereas there are significant divergences between Member States in terms of safe-country of origin analysis;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas in the case of most asylum applications the provisions on the hierarchy of criteria and the deadlines laid down as part of the Dublin procedures are not
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 3 — having regard to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 18, 19 and
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas in the case of most asylum applications the
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas in the case of most asylum applications, the set of hierarchical criteria and the deadlines laid down as part of Dublin procedures are not met and transfers are not carried out;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas data on the implementation of the Dublin Regulation demonstrate a systematic inability to correctly apply the provisions on families and the principle of the primacy of the best interests of the child, which results in pointless, unreasonable transfer procedures; whereas effective implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of the Regulation might ensure the effectiveness of asylum seekers' right to family life and family unity;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas studies on the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation highlight systematic disregard towards family provisions and incorrect application of the principle of the best interest of the child, which have resulted in unnecessary and unreasonable transfer procedures;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas studies on the implementation of the Dublin III regulation highlight routine disregard towards family provisions and incorrect application of the principle of the best interest of the child, which have resulted in unnecessary and unreasonable transfer procedures;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C b (new) Cb. whereas the provisions on dependent persons (Article 16) and the discretionary clauses (Article 17) could be widely used to support family unity;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C b (new) Cb. whereas the provisions on dependent persons (article 16) and the discretionary clauses (article 17) could be widely used to support family unity;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C b (new) Cb. whereas only very limited use has been made by the Member States of the humanitarian and discretionary clauses in the Regulation;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C c (new) Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C c (new) Cc. whereas the preventive action provision of the Dublin III regulation (Article 33) has never been used;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 4 — having regard to Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C d (new) Cd. whereas there has been scarce use of the humanitarian and discretionary clauses; whereas these clauses provide reasonable solutions for relocations, including following disembarkations;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C d (new) Cd. whereas the preventive action provision of the Dublin III Regulation (Article 33) has never been used;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C e (new) Ce. whereas coercion in the context of the implementation of the Dublin III regulation by domestic authorities should be avoided; whereas the elimination of coercion, either to achieve a transfer or in relation to detention, would minimise human suffering and considerably reduce financial and operational costs of transfers;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C e (new) Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C f (new) Cf. whereas administrative arrangements concluded between Germany and different Member States raise legal concerns, including on the deprivation of procedural safeguards entitled under the Dublin regulation, access to the asylum procedure post- transfer and compliance with human rights; whereas the informal arrangement by which Dublin family transfers from Greece to Germany were capped at 70 persons per month for a certain period of time has caused great human suffering by delaying family reunification;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C f (new) Cf. whereas implementation of the Dublin III Regulation does not effectively address secondary movements which are largely due to asylum seekers' social- connections with specific countries, protection-based concerns, health reasons and systemic deficiencies in the asylum systems where application are made;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C g (new) Cg. whereas Article 28 of the Dublin Regulation allows detention as an exceptional measure "to secure transfer procedures", where there is "significant risk of absconding" of the applicant; whereas this definition remains unclear and the interpretation varies from a Member State to another;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C g (new) Cg. whereas there is lack of compliance as regards procedural guarantees and safeguards for asylum seekers, especially for children; whereas adequate information is not systematically and consistently provided;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C h (new) Ch. whereas the length of the procedures and the lack of predictable outcomes coupled with poor reception conditions and social precarity have impacts on the well being of the asylum- seekers who in many cases have experiences traumatic experiences back home and/or on their way to reach the EU;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C h (new) Ch. whereas the use of detention and coercive transfers raises concerns with respect to asylum seekers' right to liberty, dignity and physical integrity;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 4 — having regard to Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas there have been significant shortcomings in the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation, including during the COVID-19 crisis, undermining the right to international protection and leading to violations of fundamental rights; whereas some of the flaws are inherent to the design of the Dublin regulation and can not be solved through implementation alone ;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the
Amendment 62 #
Da. whereas some of the flaws are inherent in the design of the Regulation and cannot be solved through better implementation alone;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas there have been significant shortcomings in the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas there have been significant shortcomings in the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation, including during the COVID-19 crisis, u
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas flaws in the implementation of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU), the recast Reception Directive (2013/33/EU) and the recast Qualification directive (2011/95/EU) have had an impact on the implementation of the Dublin regulation; whereas the European Commission should strengthen its work to ensure Member states compliance with these Directives, including through infringement procedures;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas the temporary solidarity mechanism for Search and Rescue in the Mediterranean settled by the Malta declaration, and signed on 23rd September 2019 by Germany, France, Italy and Malta, was valid for a period of at least six months; whereas no other Member State joined this ad hoc agreement;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas the Malta declaration was a failure as most Member States did not fulfil their relocation commitments;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 4 — having regard to Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas the Australian model has been the most effective asylum model to date to combat human trafficking, abuse of asylum seekers by human traffickers and stop tragic deaths of asylum seekers occurring at sea;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D b (new) Db. whereas information gaps do not allow for a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of Dublin regulation; whereas statistical information is not provided to the same degree or frequency between the Member States; whereas key information gaps cover grounds for requests, duration of procedures, resources, withdrawn applications, failed transfers, appeal, processes and detention;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D b (new) Db. whereas secondary movements are largely due to asylum-seekers social connections with specific countries, protection-based concerns, health reasons and systematic deficiencies in the asylum systems where applications are made;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D c (new) Dc. whereas the use of detention and coercive measures raise concerns on the asylum seekers' right to liberty, dignity and physical integrity;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D d (new) Dd. whereas the direct and indirect costs of implementing the Dublin III regulation represented approximately 1 billion euros in 2014 according to the European Commission; whereas these costs were estimated at 2.5-4.9 billion by the EPRS in 2018;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 1 Incorporating the principle of solidarity into the
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 1 Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 1 Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 1 Incorporating the principle of solidarity in
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 4 — having regard to Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of Member States, in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of Member States, in particular when influxes of migrants occur; considers that the first- entry criterion in Dublin put an unprecedented and disproportionate burden on frontline countries in 2015-16 in terms of registration and reception of asylum seekers; stresses that the introduction of hotspots and a temporary relocation programme as proposed by the Commission in 2015 was intended to rebalance the management of asylum- seekers when entering the EU territory, as a pragmatic approach compared to the strict application of Dublin regulation principles; takes the view that the
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of Member States, and primarily those in the front line which, owing to their geographical location, are always the countries of first entry, in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the EU therefore needs a solidarity mechanism which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among Member States, including through relocation on the basis of objective criteria of asylum seekers who are manifestly eligible for asylum;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of Member States, in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the EU therefore needs a solidarity mechanism which
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of Member States, in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the EU
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of Member States, in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the EU therefore needs a solidarity mechanism which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among Member States, including through relocation on the basis of objective criteria of asylum seekers who are manifestly eligible for asylum in full respect of the fundamental right to safety and protection of asylum seekers;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of Member States, in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the EU therefore needs
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of Member States, in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the EU therefore needs a flexible solidarity mechanism which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among Member States
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 6 a (new) — having regard to the UN Global Compact on Refugees,
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Dublin system places a
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new) (1) Stresses that EU migration policy must distinguish between people seeking protection and economic migrants; notes that only 38 percent of the asylum seekers in the EU where granted asylum in the first instance; underlines that this undermines the intentions of the EU asylum system as a whole as well as the Dublin III regulation;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new) (1) Points out that the Dublin Regulation, as designed and implemented, has failed to guarantee a fair distribution of responsibility between Member States and swift access to international protection;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new) (1) Refugee relocation cannot be imposed on Member States as an obligation. There is no legal basis or unanimous consent among all Member States for this.
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Takes the view that relocation of children, in particular of unaccompanied children, should be accelerated and prioritised to ensure children have access to education, healthcare and appropriate accommodation; unaccompanied children should benefit of appropriate protection measures such as effective guardianship
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers that the Dublin System, and in particular the first country of irregular entry criterion places a significant burden on a minority of Member states;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Urges the EU to establish an automatic, permanent and mandatory relocation mechanism ensuring the full respect of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility enshrined in art.80 of TFEU; including for those rescued at sea;
source: 654.089
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2020-11-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE653.842&secondRef=01New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE653.842 |
2020-11-01Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE653.842New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE653.842&secondRef=01 |
2020-07-30Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE653.842&secondRef=01New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE653.842 |
| forecasts/0/date |
Old
2020-10-05T00:00:00New
2020-12-14T00:00:00 |
2020-07-17Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE654.089
|
| docs/2 |
|
2020-07-08Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1 |
|
2020-06-16Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs |
|
| forecasts/0/date |
Old
2020-07-06T00:00:00New
2020-10-05T00:00:00 |
2020-02-05Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| forecasts |
|
2020-01-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0/shadows |
|
2020-01-07Show (3) Changes
| events |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |