2020/2047(INI) Implementation report on Article 43 of Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection
Lead committee dossier:
Progress: Procedure completed
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | LIBE |
MARQUARDT Erik ( Verts/ALE)
|
DÜPONT Lena ( EPP),
GUILLAUME Sylvie ( S&D),
AZMANI Malik ( Renew),
BRUDZIŃSKI Joachim Stanisław ( ECR),
REGO Sira ( GUE/NGL - European United Left - Nordic Green Left)
|
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Events
2021/02/11
EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2021/02/10
EP - Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
Documents
2021/02/10
EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
2021/02/08
EP - Debate in Parliament
Documents
2021/01/20
EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2021/01/20
EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2021/01/12
EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2020/11/19
EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2020/10/23
EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2020/04/16
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2020/04/02
EP - MARQUARDT Erik (Verts/ALE) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
Documents
- Text adopted by Parliament, single reading: T9-0042/2021
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T9-0042/2021
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A9-0005/2021
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A9-0005/2021
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE660.396
- Committee draft report: PE660.061
- Committee draft report: PE660.061
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE660.396
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A9-0005/2021
- Text adopted by Parliament, single reading: T9-0042/2021
Activities
- Rainer WIELAND
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Erik MARQUARDT
Plenary Speeches (1)
Votes
Mise en œuvre de l’article 43 de la directive relative aux procédures d'asile - Implementation of Article 43 of the Asylum Procedures Directive - Umsetzung von Artikel 43 der Asylverfahrensrichtlinie - A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - § 4/1 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: +: 532, -: 103, 0: 59
PPE
The Left
NI
IDA9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - § 4/2 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: +: 532, -: 113, 0: 50
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - Am 2 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: -: 516, +: 164, 0: 15
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - Am 6 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: -: 523, +: 158, 0: 11
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - Am 1 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: -: 524, +: 163, 0: 8
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - Am 7 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: -: 531, +: 120, 0: 41
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - Am 8 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: -: 521, +: 170, 0: 1
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - Am 9 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: -: 535, +: 148, 0: 9
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - § 16/1 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: +: 532, -: 150, 0: 12
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - § 16/2 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: +: 510, -: 163, 0: 22
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - Am 3 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: -: 518, +: 154, 0: 23
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - § 19/1 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: +: 674, 0: 15, -: 6
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - § 19/2 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: +: 521, -: 123, 0: 49
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - Am 10 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: -: 516, +: 174, 0: 2
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - § 22 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: +: 518, -: 163, 0: 14
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - Am 4 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: -: 529, +: 150, 0: 12
A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - Am 5 #
2021/02/09 Outcome: -: 532, +: 149, 0: 10
Mise en œuvre de l’article 43 de la directive relative aux procédures d'asile - Implementation of Article 43 of the Asylum Procedures Directive - Umsetzung von Artikel 43 der Asylverfahrensrichtlinie - A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt - Proposition de résolution #
2021/02/09 Outcome: +: 505, -: 124, 0: 55
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 178 |
2020/2047(INI)
2020/11/19
LIBE
178 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation -1 (new) -1 having regard to Article 78 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 13 — having regard to the study of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) of September 2020 entitled ‘Border Procedures for Asylum Applications in EU+ Countries’ and its publication of September 2019 entitled "Guidance on asylum procedure: operational standards and indicators" ,
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13.
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Stresses that in most of the Member States examined, adequate vulnerability identification mechanisms are missing and, when present, often assess only visible vulnerability; expresses strong concerns that this deprives vulnerable people of the special procedural guarantees and adequate support they are entitled to under EU law; calls for an unequivocal exemption of vulnerable applicants from border procedures and the urgent need to put into place adequate vulnerability identification mechanisms;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Stresses that in most of the Member States examined, adequate vulnerability identification mechanisms are missing and, when present, often assess only visible vulnerability; calls on these Member States to put in place the required conditions as stipulated in the RCD;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13 a. Condemns the pressure exercised by the Commission on Greece to reduce its list of vulnerability criteria when assessing the use or not of the fast-track admissibility border procedure, which has left people with disabilities, victims of torture and gender-based violence at high risk of going unidentified; condemns in particular the removal of PTSD as a vulnerability criteria in the Greek law adopted on 31 October 2019;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Recalls that Article 25(6)(b) of the APD prescribes a very limited set of circumstances allowing Member States to process unaccompanied minors’ applications in a border procedure; highlights that the Member States examined lack adequate age assessment methods which raises questions as regards compliance with the best interests of the child; stresses that trafficking victims are being told to identify themselves as adults by traffickers and recommends that young individuals belonging to groups at high risk of trafficking should be protected by the authorities including through the conduction of an adequate age assessment; recommends that children and their families be exempted from border procedures;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Recalls that Article 25(6)(b) of the APD prescribes a very limited set of circumstances allowing Member States to process unaccompanied minors’ applications in a border procedure; highlights that the Member States examined lack adequate age assessment methods; recommends that children and their families be exempted from border procedures; further recommends that to guarantee effective access to asylum procedures and respect for fundamental rights, Member States can put in place at the screening stage an effective monitoring mechanism as an additional safeguard;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Recalls that Article 25(6)(b) of the APD prescribes a very limited set of circumstances allowing Member States to process unaccompanied minors’ applications in a border procedure; highlights that the Member States examined lack adequate age assessment methods;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Recalls that Article 25(6)(b) of the APD prescribes a very limited set of circumstances allowing Member States to process unaccompanied minors’ applications in a border procedure;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Recalls that Article 25(6)(b) of the APD prescribes a very limited set of circumstances allowing Member States to process unaccompanied minors’ applications in a border procedure;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 15 a (new) - having regard to the Frontex Risk Analysis for 2020,
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Recalls that Article
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Recalls that Article 25(6)(b) of the APD prescribes a very limited set of circumstances allowing Member States to process unaccompanied minors’ applications in a border procedure; highlights that the Member States
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Recalls that Article 25(6)(b) of the APD prescribes a very
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Notes that border procedures are fast-track procedures and recalls that, under Article 43 of the APD, applicants in border procedures enjoy the same rights
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Notes that border procedures are fast-track procedures and recalls that, under Article 43 of the APD, applicants in border procedures enjoy the same rights and guarantees as applicants in normal procedures; underlines that high-quality asylum procedures across the EU space will help justify confidence that returns of rejected asylum seekers are permissible, as will strong safeguards against unsafe returns of rejected asylum seekers and undocumented migrants, who while not deemed beneficiaries of protection may face risks upon return or have other claims to remain;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Notes that border procedures are fast-track procedures and recalls that, under Article 43 of the APD, applicants in border procedures shall enjoy the same rights and guarantees as applicants in normal procedures;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Highlights that significant problems regarding access to and the quality of legal assistance were reported in all the Member States examined; stresses that free legal assistance is key to ensuring better-quality information in personal interviews and improving first-instance decision-making;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Highlights that significant problems regarding access to and the quality of legal assistance were reported in all the Member States examined; stresses that the right to free legal assistance
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 19 Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Regrets that, within the framework of border procedures, many Member States do not regulate access to NGOs, which have a key role in securing applicants’ procedural rights and fostering procedural transparency; calls on Member States to ensure and support the regular presence of specialised non-governmental and civil society asylum organisations at border facilities, crossing points and transit zones;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Regrets that, within the framework of border procedures, many Member States do not
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Notes with concern that applicants are frequently given little to no information about border procedures and their procedural rights and obligations; stresses the need for applicants to have timely access to adequate and comprehensible information about the criteria for granting international protection, which evidence and information is relevant in the context for these criteria and their procedural rights and obligations in a written and oral form and in a language they understand;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Notes with concern that applicants are frequently given little to no information about border procedures and their rights and obligations; reiterates the obligations of Member States on providing access to assistance, representation and procedural information as stipulated under the APD; calls on Member States to implement and apply these safeguards in full ensuring further harmonisation across the EU;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Notes
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the Commission has never assessed the implementation of the APD, despite its legal reporting obligation;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18.
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18 a. Notes with concern that problems regarding the availability and quality interpretation have been reported in each Member State examined; highlights that particularly interpretation via phone often leads to a lack of understanding and raises confidentiality concerns; calls on the Member States to ensure access to interpretation on the spot in each phase of the border procedure;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 b (new) 18 b. Recalls that personal interviews are a corollary of the Member States’ obligation to give applicants an effective opportunity to present the grounds of their applications and key elements of the examination procedure, and shall be conducted by adequately trained personnel in full compliance with the procedural guarantees established in Chapter II of the ADP; notes with concern that the daily practice in certain Member States indicates that first-contact officials in some cases exceed their own competences and responsibilities when it comes to conducting applicants’ first interviews; reiterates its position in the APR report that border police and law enforcement authorities should under no circumstances have the power to decide on the substance of applications for international protection;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 b (new) 18 b. Notes with concern the absence of interpretation in the language of the applicant in many Member States; stresses that interpretation should be provided in person and at all stages of the border procedure in accordance with Article 8(1), Article 12(1) and 15(3) of the APD as well as with UNHCR guidance;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 c (new) 18 c. Stresses that the difficulties of applicants in accessing procedural safeguards can have serious repercussions on the quality and outcome of asylum decisions;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Acknowledges that the APD leaves to the Member States’ discretion whether appeals have an automatic suspensive effect; recalls, however, that the CJEU has recognised that an appeal against a return decision, whose enforcement may expose the third-country national concerned to a serious risk of refoulement, must have a suspens
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Acknowledges that the APD leaves to the Member States’ discretion whether appeals have an automatic suspensive effect;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Acknowledges that the APD leaves to the Member States’ discretion whether appeals have an automatic suspensive effect;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Acknowledges that the APD leaves to the Member States’ discretion whether appeals have an automatic suspensive effect; recalls, however, that the CJEU has recognised that an appeal against a return decision, whose enforcement may expose the third-country national concerned to a serious risk of refoulement, must have a
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) A a. whereas article 43 (1) of the APD leaves Member States the choice of the use and design of border procedures; whereas 14 Member States have a border procedure, among which 4 limit it legally or in practice to asylum applications submitted at airports; whereas border procedures represent only a small percentage of the total caseload of determining authorities with the exception of Greece where more than 50% of the asylum applications are dealt in a fast- track procedure as a result of the EU- Turkey statement;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Stresses that border procedures are characterised by a combination of short procedural time limits and de facto detention
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Stresses that border procedures are characterised by a combination of short procedural time limits and de facto detention
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Stresses that border procedures
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Stresses that border procedures are characterised by a combination of short procedural time limits and de facto detention, which
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Stresses that border procedures are characterised by a combination of short procedural time limits and de facto detention, which
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20 a. Considers, given the negative impact which a border procedure has on the procedural rights of applicants, that those applicants channelled to a border procedure should, in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, have the right to an effective remedy against that decision to channel them to a border procedure;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20 a. Stresses that the way Member States have been implementing border procedure has affected negatively many rights guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental rights, including the right to asylum, the principle of non refoulement, the best interest of the child, the right to an effective remedy and the right to liberty;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Re
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21.
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21.
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) A a. whereas according to the APD, Member States should be able to accelerate the examination procedure in particular by introducing shorter, but reasonable, time limits, in well-defined circumstances where an asylum application is likely to be unfounded or where there are serious national security or public order concern;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Recommends that border procedures should be restricted to less complex cases, such as applicants who have
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Recommends that border procedures should be restricted to less complex cases, such as applicants who have been granted protection in other
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) 21 a. Stresses that in accordance to article 43(3) of the APD, in the event of arrivals involving a large number of third country nationals or stateless persons lodging applications for international protection at the border or in a transit zone, those procedures may also be applied where and for as long as these third-country nationals or stateless persons are accommodated normally at locations in proximity to the border or transit zone; considers that proper border procedures in conformity with the EU asylum acquis and with sufficient staff and resources may constitute an efficient instrument for ensuring a fast and fair procedure to a large number of asylum seekers, while contributing to prevent secondary movements;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 b (new) 21 b. Stresses that EU agencies can support Member States in the event of a large number of arrivals of asylum seekers at a border entry point, to ensure a fast and fair procedure for all applicants; notes in particular that EASO agents can give operational support at various steps of the asylum procedure and that Frontex can help registering the applications;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Recalls that the safeguards laid down in Chapter II of the APD also apply in the case of large numbers of arrivals; notes with great concern that in these cases, border procedures create
Amendment 155 #
22. Recalls that the safeguards laid down in Chapter II of the APD also apply in the case of large numbers of arrivals;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Recalls that the safeguards laid down in Chapter II of the APD also apply in the case of large numbers of arrivals; notes
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Recalls that the safeguards laid down in Chapter II of the APD also apply in the case of large numbers of arrivals;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Recalls that the safeguards laid down in Chapter II of the APD also apply in the case of large numbers of arrivals; notes
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Recalls that the safeguards laid down in Chapter II of the APD also apply in the case of large numbers of arrivals; notes with
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) A a. whereas, in the absence of impact assessments, the Commission in 2016 and 2020 presented proposals for an Asylum Procedures Regulation;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Shares the concerns expressed by the FRA, the UN High Commissioner for
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23.
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Shares the concerns expressed by the FRA, the UN High Commissioner for
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23 a. [new subheading] Application of border procedures
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Calls on Member States to avoid using border procedures since the objectives of the APD and a fair asylum procedure cannot be guaranteed; calls on Member States who nevertheless apply Article 43 of the APD to ensure proper implementation in all its aspects following careful verification;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Calls on Member States
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A b (new) A b. whereas the low number of border procedures does not provide a full picture of the situation at the borders; whereas international organisations, NGOs and journalists have documented wide evidence of refoulement, collective expulsions, push-backs and refusals of entry at the external borders of the EU; whereas this has prevented thousands of people to have access to an asylum procedure in the EU in violation of EU and international law;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Calls on Member States to
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 a (new) 24 a. Calls on Member States to continuingly exchange best practices on the correct application of the current border procedures, respecting all required procedural and fundamental rights safeguards; stresses that proper and uniform application of high quality should be the norm, not the exception;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 a (new) 24 a. Raises strong concerns regarding the proposals of the Commission in 2016 and in 2020 to render border procedures mandatory;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 b (new) 24 b. Reiterates that the APD is interlinked with other instruments of the asylum acquis and the SBC; notes that the majority of Member States assess the applicability of a Dublin procedure at the border or in transit zones; calls on all Member States to apply all available and relevant instruments in full at the border or in transit zones, enhancing efficiency and clarity among applicable procedures and providing uniformity across the EU;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 c (new) Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Calls on the Commission to effectively monitor the implementation of the APD and to take action in the event of non-compliance; welcomes in this regard the launching of infringement procedures against Hungary and Bulgaria; notes that other Member States have not been complying with the APD and urges the Commission to launch infringements against other countries that do not comply with the APD;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Calls on the Commission to effectively monitor the implementation of the APD and to take action in the event of non-compliance including launching infringement proceedings where appropriate;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Calls on the Commission to effectively monitor the implementation of the
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25 a. Condemns the pressure on Greece since the EU-Turkey deal to reduce procedural safeguards in border procedures and regrets the lack of transparency of the Commission regarding its legal assessment of changes of procedural guarantees under the new Greek asylum legislation;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A b (new) A b. whereas clear information and adequate assistance should be provided to third-country nationals or stateless persons in border procedures, including legal assistance and interpretation arrangements, in particular on the possibility to lodge an application for international protection;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A b (new) A b. whereas disaggregated and comparable data relating to the implementation of Article 43 of the APD is often not collected or publicly available;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 a (new) - having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code),
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A c (new) Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A d (new) A d. whereas Member States have incorporated aspects of the border procedure foreseen by the APD in their domestic legal order without applying them in practice; whereas this can be illustrated by the provision in law of information and counselling as well as interpretation at border crossing points combined with the absence of implementation of this provision in practice in most Member States;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A e (new) A e. whereas the financial costs of border procedures are not available; whereas the financial costs of the implementation of article 43 of the APD is likely to be significant and disproportionate; whereas there is also a significant human cost for the individuals due to the harmful effects of deprivation of liberty in inadequate border detention facilities and with very limited access to legal representatives and NGOs;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A f (new) A f. whereas the differing protection rates in border procedures compared to regular procedure for similar caseloads suggests that the border procedure does not provide a fair asylum procedure;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A g (new) A g. whereas there has been an increase of Member States resorting to de facto detention instead of de jure in border procedures; whereas de facto detention refers to a form of detention that is not qualified as such by national law and is being used by Member States to disregard provisions in EU law regarding deprivation of liberty or reception conditions;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Reiterates that an average of 370.00 third-country nationals every year see their application for international protection rejected and need to be channelled into the return procedure, which represents around 80% of the total number of return decisions issued every year;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Reiterates the importance of an
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Reiterates the importance of an evidence-based approach to guide
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Stresses that EU asylum policy should put human rights and the right to international protection at its center; regrets that the proposals made by the Commission since 2016 aimed mostly at lowering standards and reducing procedural safeguards;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 b (new) - having regard to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (Dublin III),
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 b (new) Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Highlights that border procedures constitute an exception to the legally defined rule that asylum applicants have a right to enter the territory of a Member State and can be applied only in the exhaustive number of cases set out in the APD; points out that the EU legislators intended a narrow interpretation of those cases;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Highlights that border procedures c
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Highlights that border procedures constitute an exception to the legally defined rule that asylum applicants have a right to enter the territory of a Member State and can be applied only in the exhaustive number of cases set out in the APD; points out that the EU legislators intended a narrow interpretation of those cases; deplores the fact that some Member States apply border procedures much more extensively; calls on Member States using this possibility to restrict its scope to exceptional cases;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Highlights that border procedures constitute an exception to the legally defined rule that asylum applicants have a right to enter the territory of a Member State and can be applied only in the exhaustive number of cases set out in the APD;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Highlights that
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Highlights that border procedures constitute an exception to the legally defined rule that asylum applicants have a right to enter the territory of a Member State and can be applied only in the exhaustive number of cases set out in the APD; points out that the EU legislators intended a narrow interpretation of those cases;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Highlights that border procedures currently constitute an exception to the legally defined rule that asylum applicants have a
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Is very concerned that some Member States apply border procedures also at internal borders; recalls in that regard that the Court of Justice of the European Union in Arib (Case C-444/17) ruled that the exception contained in Article 2(2)(a) of the Return Directive, which allows Member States to apply simplified national return procedures, cannot be applied at internal borders, where a Member State has reintroduced border controls on account of a serious threat to public policy or internal security; reiterates its deep concerns with regard to internal border controls introduced by many Member States and calls on the Member States to refrain from applying border procedures in this context;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 c (new) - having regard to Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (RCD),
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Remains unconvinced by the rationale behind border procedures; notes, in that regard, that all persons seeking international protection have an interest in their requests being dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible, provided that all applications are subject to an individual assessment and that the procedural safeguards and rights granted to applicants under Union law apply and can be exercised effectively;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Notes that border procedures aim at a better management of abusive and inadmissable asylum requests at the border and benefit the efficient process of genuine cases;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Condemns that some Member States apply border procedures also at internal borders;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Expresses doubts about the channeling of applicants to border procedures on the basis solely of their nationality; takes the view that this undermines the notion of individual assessment, and barely respects the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 c (new) 3 c. Is concerned that border procedures further stigmatise those persons seeking international protection in the European Union;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Reiterates the applicability of the Schengen Borders Code to any person crossing the internal or external borders of Member States; emphasises the necessity of harmonised high quality border controls in order to uphold free movement within the Schengen area and to help combat irregular immigration and trafficking in human beings and to prevent any threat to the Member States' internal security, public policy, public health and international relations;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Reiterates that the applicability of the SBC is without prejudice to the rights of refugees and persons requesting international protection; notes these requests for international protection at the external border or in a transit zone have a suspensive effect on a decision to refuse entry to EU territory under the SBC pending their assessment under Art. 43 of the APD or Dublin III;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 d (new) - having regard to Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (Return Directive),
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Notes that several Member States base border procedures on the legal fiction of non-entry, thus presuming that border procedures take place prior to a decision on
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Notes that in several Member States
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Notes that several Member States base border procedures on
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights that persons subject to a border procedure are, as a rule, de facto detained; Member States must strive to take specific measures based on clear and carefully verified evidence when asylum applications are made at the border;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights that
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights that persons subject to a border procedure are, as a rule, de facto detained in all Member States;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights that persons subject to a border procedure are
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Stresses that, in line with European and international human rights law, detention must remain a measure of last resort, based on the principles of necessity and proportionality, it must last for the shortest time possible, and persons detained must be given an opportunity to appeal against their deprivation of liberty;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Reiterates that Member States must not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is an applicant
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 9 Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Reiterates that Member States
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Reiterates that as stipulated in the RCD, Member States
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Reiterates th
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Reiterates that Member States must not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is an applicant but only if a Member State does not have certain information about the applicant's identity and if it cannot be verified, and recalls that applicants may only be detained where other less coercive measures cannot be applied; regrets that hardly any alternatives to detention have been developed and applied in border procedures;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Emphasises that children should not be detained on the basis of their immigration status as it can do serious harm to their physical and mental health, exacerbating their trauma and increasing the likelihood of their self-harming or attempting suicide; urges the Commission to act when Member States engage in instances of protracted and systematic immigration detention of children and their families;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Is of the opinion that increasing the use of border procedures does not sit easily with the right to liberty as laid down in Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Considers it very problematic that some Member States apply de facto detention in border procedures without acknowledging them as such under national law
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Considers it very problematic that some Member States apply de facto border procedures without acknowledging them as such under national law, as this can result in insufficient safeguards against such detention; considers it necessary for each asylum application to be accompanied by reliable and verified information about the applicant; stresses that any detention should always be prescribed by law;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 10 Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Considers it very problematic that some Member States apply de facto detention in border procedures without acknowledging them as such under national law, as this can result in insufficient safeguards
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Considers it
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Recalls that the CJEU, in Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU, ruled
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9 a. Notes with concern that only few asylum seekers are effectively released from detention; recalls that Member States should communicate the detention decision to the individual concerned and inform the latter of available legal remedies; recalls that a speedy judicial review in line with States’ obligations under EU and international law should be carried out;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 b (new) 9 b. Is deeply concerned about reports of severe human rights violations and deplorable detention conditions in transit zones or detention centres in border areas; calls on the Member States to ensure dignified reception conditions in border facilities in line with the standards of the Reception Conditions Directive; recalls in that regard that applicants who are in detention should be treated with full respect for human dignity and their reception should be specifically designed to meet their needs in that situation.
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 c (new) 9 c. Deplores that a significant number of children are still detained in the European Union as part of asylum procedures, which constitutes a direct violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has clarified that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 d (new) 9 d. Notes with concern that the fiction of non-entry amounts to a differential treatment of returnees since it allows Member States to return persons whose asylum application has been rejected under simplified national return procedures, without having to apply all the safeguards prescribed by the Return Directive, including a period for voluntary departure; stresses that voluntary returns are often more effective than forced returns; recommends therefore to eliminate the fiction of non-entry;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 11 Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Is deeply concerned that, in the context of border procedures, numerous cases of persons being refused entry without their asylum claims being registered have been reported, at both external and internal borders;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Is deeply concerned that, in the context of border procedures, numerous cases of persons being refused entry without their asylum claims being registered have been reported, at both external and internal borders; reiterates that third-country nationals requesting international protection shall be given access to relevant procedures in line with the asylum acquis, as stipulated in the SBC; reiterates that automatic refusal of entry, refoulement and collective expulsions are prohibited under EU and international law;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Is deeply concerned that, in the context of border procedures, numerous cases of persons being refused entry without their asylum claims being registered have been reported, at both external and internal borders; reiterates that automatic refusal of entry, refoulement and
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Is deeply concerned that, in the context of border procedures, numerous cases of persons being refused entry without their asylum claims being registered have been reported, at both external and internal borders; for this reason, careful checks must be carried out on the registration of asylum applications and each application must be painstakingly verified and analysed; reiterates that automatic refusal of entry, refoulement and collective expulsions are prohibited under EU and international law;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 12 Amendment 90 #
11. Considers it important to establish independent monitoring bodies and calls on the Member States to grant them access to border facilities to ensure the effective protection of fundamental rights and the systematic reporting of violations, in line with the FRA’s Guidance on Border Controls; independent monitoring should also verify the quality of the decision- making process and its outcome, as well as detention conditions and compliance with procedural safeguards; NGOs and independent experts as well as the FRA should be part of the monitoring bodies;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Considers it important t
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Considers it important to establish independent verification and monitoring bodies and calls on the Member States to grant them access to border facilities to ensure the effective protection of fundamental rights and the systematic reporting of violations, in line with the FRA’s Guidance on Border Controls;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. Notes that monitoring and statistical data are a prerequisite for ensuring compliance with EU law at the external borders; calls on the Member States to collect and provide data on the scope of their border procedure, the number and types of applicants and of persons denied access to the procedure as well as on the recognition rates;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. Raises concern over the lack of access to complaint mechanisms especially for victims of humans rights abuses, including push-backs;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 5 Exemption of
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 5 Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Notes that according to article 24(1) of the APD, Member States shall assess within a reasonable period of time after an application for international protection is made whether the applicant is an applicant in need of special procedural guarantees; notes that, according to Article 24(3) of the APD, when applicants are in need of special procedural guarantees, Member States shall not apply the border procedure if such guarantees cannot be provided within its framework;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Notes that, according to Article 24(3) of the APD, when applicants are in need of special procedural guarantees,
source: 660.396
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2021-12-18Show (13) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE660.061New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-PR-660061_EN.html |
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE660.396New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AM-660396_EN.html |
| docs/3 |
|
| docs/3 |
|
| events/0/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
| events/1/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
| events/2/type |
Old
Committee report tabled for plenary, single readingNew
Committee report tabled for plenary |
| events/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20210208&type=CRENew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-9-2021-02-08-TOC_EN.html |
| events/4 |
|
| events/4 |
|
| events/5 |
|
2021-02-17Show (6) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| docs/3 |
|
| events/4 |
|
| events/5 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament's voteNew
Procedure completed |
2021-02-16Show (7) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| docs/2 |
|
| events/1 |
|
| events/2 |
|
| events/3 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament's vote |
2020-12-09Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
2020-11-28Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE660.396
|
2020-11-19Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1 |
|
2020-11-01Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/0/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE660.061
|
2020-10-23Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs |
|
2020-06-24Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
2020-05-15Show (1) Changes
| committees/0/shadows |
|