Activities of Heinz K. BECKER related to 2018/2271(INL)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT with recommendations to the Commission on Humanitarian Visas PDF (414 KB) DOC (72 KB)
Amendments (7)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas according to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 march 2017 in Case C-638/162 Member States are not required, under Union law, to grant a humanitarian visa to persons who wish to enter their territory with a view to applying for asylum, but they remain free to do so on the basis of their national law; whereas based on this ruling interprets existing Union law which may be modifieda framework for Humanitarian Visas on European level cannot be binding for EU Member States; __________ 2 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 March 2018, X and X v État belge, C- 638/16, ECLI:EU:C2017:173).
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Requests the Commission to submit, by 31 March 2019, on the basis of point (a) of Article 77(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning ofStates that with regards to European Court of Justices ruling from March 2017 (Judgment in Case C-638/16 PPU) there is no legal basis for European legislation on long term residence permits under the title Humanitarian Visa but refers to the Ecuropean Union (TFEU), a proposal for a Regulation on establishing a Europearent legislation which allows member states to issue short time residence permits with limited territorial validity on Hhumanitarian Visa, followinggrounds and the recommendations set out in the Annex heretofor does not see a reason to create further means of residence permits;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. States that this new and misleading interpretation of Humanitarian Visas can create more problems than it solves: pull factor for third country nationals, mass influx at embassies and consulates that would possibly lead to their closure, increasing number of illegally staying third country nationals in EU member states as there will continue to be negative asylum decisions;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Expresses it's serious doubts that this instrument will be able to stop the problems of smugglers, illegal immigration or the attempts to cross the Mediterranean;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Aims to stop migration as close to its origin as possible by tackling root causes of migration on the one hand and by establishing reception centres in third countries for those who are already on their way on the other hand;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Expresses its objective that asylum applications should be dealt with already outside the EU in third countries, especially in EU led reception centres in order to prevent people from the dangerous immigration routes such as the Mediterranean;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that Member States should be able to issue a European humanitarian visa to persons seeking international protection, to allow those persons to enter the territory of the Member State issuing the visa for the sole purpose of making an application for international protection in that Member State; reiterates that, in accordance with the ruling of the European Court of Justice of 7 march 2017 in Case C- 638/16, a regime on European level on humanitarian visas cannot be binding to Member States but rather a framework for those Member State willing to grant humanitarian visas;