Activities of Barbara SPINELLI related to 2015/0125(NLE)
Plenary speeches (2)
Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece (debate) IT
Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece (debate) IT
Amendments (27)
Amendment 29 #
(3) The recent crisis situation in the Mediterranean prompted the Union institutions to immediately acknowledgeacknowledge with great delay the exceptional migratory flows in this region and call for concrete measures of solidarity towards the frontline Member States. In particular, at a joint meeting of Foreign and Interior Ministers on 20 April 2015, the European Commission presented an inadequate ten-point plan of immediate actions to be taken in response to this crisis, including a commitment to consider options for an emergency relocation mechanism.
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In its resolution of 28 April 2015, the European Parliament reiterated the need for the Union to base its response to the latest tragedies in the Mediterranean on solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility and to step up its efforts in this area towards Member States which receive the highest number of refugees and applicants for international protection in either absolute or proportional terms due to the criteria for defining the responsible Member-State to examine an asylum request set in Dublin Regulations.
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Among the Member States witnessing situations of particular pressure and in light of the recent tragic events in the Mediterranean, Italy and Greece in particular have experienced unprecedented flows of migrants, including applicants for international protection who are in clear need of international protection, arriving on their territories, generating a significant pressure on their migration and asylum systems, indicating thus the negative impact of the Dublin Regulation for the first country of entry into the EU, which regrettably has not yet led to the suspension of this regulation or at least the removal of the reference to the first country of entry into the EU.
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) According to Frontex data, another important migration route into the Union in 2014 was the Western Balkan route with 43 357 irregular border crossings. However,While the majority of migrants using the Balkan route are not prima facie in need of international protection, with 51% of the arrivals being made up only of Kosovars, detection of Syrians have increased significantly in 2014 compared to 2013 from 2 706 to 12 536 and Afghans from 4 065 to 10 963.
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) At the same time, Italy and Greece should provide structural solutions to address the shortcomings in the functioning of their asylum and migration systems. The measures laid down in this Decision should therefore go hand in hand with the establishment by Italy and Greece of a solid and strategic framework for responding to the crisis situation and intensifying the ongoing reform process in these areas. In this respect, Italy and Greece should each within one month of entry into force of this Decision, present a roadmap to the Commission which should include adequate measures in the area of asylum, in particular with regard to creating sufficient capacity in open reception accommodation for asylum seekers and identification of particularly vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied children, first reception, and return enhancing the capacity, quality and efficiency of their systems in these areas, as well as measures to ensure appropriate implementation of this Decision with a view to enable them to better cope, after the end of the applicability of this decision, with a possible increased inflow of migrants on their territories.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) At the same time, Italy and Greece should provide structural solutions to address the shortcomings in the functioning of their asylum and migration systems. The measures laid down in this Decision should therefore go hand in hand with the establishment by Italy and Greece of a solid and strategic framework for responding to the crisis situation and intensifying the ongoing reform process in these areas. In this respect, Italy and Greece should each within one month of entry into force of this Decision, present a roadmap to the Commission which should include adequate measures in the area of asylum, first and reception and return, enhancing the capacity, quality and efficiency of their systems in these areas, as well as measures to ensure appropriate implementation of this Decision with a view to enable them to better cope, after the end of the applicability of this decision, with a possible increased inflow of migrants on their territories.
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) IConsidering the on-going instability and conflicts in the immediate neighbourhood of the European Union and the changing nature of migratory flows to take into account that if a Member State other than Italy or Greece should be confronted with a similar emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member State concerned, in line with Article 78(3) of the Treaty. Such measures may include, where appropriate, a suspension of the obligations of that Member State provided for in this Decision.
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In line with Article 78(3) of the Treaty, the measures envisaged for the benefit of Italy and Greece should be of a provisional nature. A period of 24 months is reasonable in view of ensuring that the measures provided for in this Decision have a real impact in respect of supporting Italy and Greece to deal with the significant migration flows on their territories. Following that, an assessment has to be carried out in order to find a viable and permanent solution based on the principle of solidarity.
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) A choice had to be made in respect of the criteria to be applied when deciding which and how many applicants are to be relocated from Italy and Greece. A clear and workable system is envisaged based on a threshold of the average rate at Union level of decisions granting international protection in the procedures at first instance as defined by Eurostat out of the total number at Union level of decisions on asylum applications for international protection taken at first instance, based on the latest available statistics. On the one hand, this threshold would have to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that all applicants who are most likely in need of international protection would be in a position to fully and swiftly enjoy their protection rights in the Member State of relocation. On the other hand, it would prevent, to the maximum extent possible, applicants who are likely to receive a negative decision to their application from being relocated to another Member State and therefore prolong unduly their stay in the Union. Based on Eurostat data for 2014 first instance decisions, a threshold of 75%, which corresponds in that year to decisions on applications for Syrians and Eritreans, should be used in this Decision. To take into account the changing nature of migratory flows, the targeted group of beneficiaries for relocation should be assessed on a quarterly basis.
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The provisional measures are intended to relieve the significant asylum pressure from Italy and Greece, in particular by relocating an important number of applicants in clear need of international protection who have arrived in the territory of Italy and Greece following the date on which this Decision becomes applicable. Based on the overall number of third- country nationals who have entered irregularly Italy and Greece since January 2014 and the number of those who are in clear need of international protection, a total of 4075 000 applicants in clear need of international protection should be relocated from Italy and Greece. This number corresponds to approximately 460% of the total number of third country nationals in clear need of international protection who have entered irregularly in Italy and Greece since January 2014. Thus, the relocation measure proposed in this Decision constitutes fair burden sharing between Italy and Greece on the one hand and the other Member States on the other hand. Based on the same overall available figures since 2014 and in the first four months of 2015 in Italy compared to Greecetaking into account the shift since 2015 of refugee flows to Greece and the actual reception capacity in each country, 650% of these applicants should be relocated from Italy and 450% from Greece.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The provisional measures are intended to relieve the significant asylum pressure from Italy and Greece, in particular by relocating an important number of applicants in clear need of international protection who have arrived in the territory of Italy and Greece following the date on which this Decision becomes applicable. Based on the overall number of third- country nationals who have entered irregularly Italy and Greece in 2014 and the number of those who are in clear need of international protection, a total of 40 000 applicants in clear need of international protection should be relocated from Italy and Greece. This number corresponds to approximately 40% of the total number of third country nationals in clear need of international protection who have entered irregularly in Italy and Greece in 2014. Thus, the relocation measure proposed in this Decision constitutes fair burden sharing of responsibility between Italy and Greece on the one hand and the other Member States on the other hand. Based on the same overall available figures in 2014 and in the first four months of 2015 in Italy compared to Greece, 60% of these applicants should be relocated from Italy and 40% from Greece.
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) The Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) set up by Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council1 provides support to burden-sharingthe fair sharing of responsibility operations agreed between Member States and is open to new policy developments in that field. Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 foresees the possibility for Member States to implement actions related to the transfer of applicants for international protection as part of their national programmes, while Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 foresees the possibility of a lump sum of EUR 6 000 for the transfer of beneficiaries of international protection from another Member State. 1 Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, amending Council Decision 2008/381/EC and repealing Decisions No 573/2007/EC and No 575/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decision 2007/435/EC (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p.168).
Amendment 85 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) When deciding which applicants in clear need of international protection should be relocated from Italy and Greece, priority should be given to vulnerable applicants within the meaning of Article 22 of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council10. In order to take into account the specific situation of vulnerable persons, Member States have a duty under the recast Reception Conditions Directive and recast Asylum Procedures Directive to conduct an individual evaluation of the vulnerabilities of individuals in terms of their special reception needs and procedural needs. Therefore, Member States must take active steps to assess the individual needs of asylum seekers and cannot rely solely on an asylum seeker’s self-identification to effectively guarantee her rights under EU law. In this respect, special needs of applicants, including health, should be of primary concern. The best interests of the child should always be a primary consideration. 10 Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p.96).
Amendment 94 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) In addition, in order to decide which specific Member State should be the Member State of relocation, specific account should be given to the preferences and specific qualifications of the applicants concerned which could facilitate their integration into the Member State of relocation, such as their language skills, family ties beyond the definition of family members in Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, social relations, previous stay in a Member State, previous study and previous work experience with a company or an organisation of a specific Member State. In the case of particularly vulnerable applicants, consideration should be given to the capacity of the Member State of relocation to provide adequate support to those applicants. Applicant's needs, preferences and specific qualification should be taken into account to the fullest extent possible.
Amendment 98 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 26 b (new)
Recital 26 b (new)
(26b) To avoid the failures of the pilot project on relocation from Malta (EUREMA), expectations and preferences should be managed properly. As an initial step, applicants should be given the possibility to express their preferences. They should rank five Member States among the Member States by order of preference and support their preferences by elements such as family ties, social ties and cultural ties such as language skills, previous stay, previous studies and previous work experience. This should take place in the course of the initial processing. As a second step, the respective Member States should be informed about the applicants’ preferences. The Member States should then be given the possibility to indicate their preferences for applicants among those applicants who had expressed their preference for the Member State concerned. Member States should support their preferences by aspects such as family, social and cultural ties. Liaison officers appointed by Member States could facilitate the procedure by conducting interviews with the respective applicants. Applicants should also have the possibility to consult with other actors such as NGOs, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and International Organization for Migration. Finally, Italy and Greece, with the assistance of EASO, should take a decision to relocate each of the applicants to a specific Member State by taking their preferences into account to the fullest extent possible. UNHCR should be consulted on their best practices developed in resettlement.
Amendment 99 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 26 c (new)
Recital 26 c (new)
(26c) The preferences of asylum seekers should become the primary criteria on which relocation decisions shall be based.
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) The appointment by Member States of liaison officers in Italy and Greece should facilitate the effective implementation of the relocation procedure, including the appropriate identification of the applicants to be relocated, in full respect of the persons’ right to human dignity without recourse to any coercion or detention measures; taking into account in particular their vulnerability, preferences, and qualifications.
Amendment 106 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 29 a (new)
Recital 29 a (new)
(29a) Whereas Court rulings both at European and national level have highlighted the flaws in the Regulation (EU) No 603/2013.
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Given the changing nature of migratory flows, the targeted group of beneficiaries for relocation should be assessed on a quarterly basis.
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. 24 037 500 applicants shall be relocated from Italy to the territory of the other Member States as set out in Annex I.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. 16 037 500 applicants shall be relocated from Greece to the territory of the other Member States as set out in Annex II.
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. On the basis of the information received pursuant to paragraphs 3, 3a and 3b of this Article, Italy and Greece shall, as soon as possible, take a decision to relocate each of the identified applicants to a specific Member State of relocation and shall notifyby taking preferences of applicants and Member States into account to the fullest extent possible and shall notify the Member States and the applicant in accordance with Article 6(4).
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Article 5 – paragraph 5
5. Applicants whose fingerprints are required to be taken pursuant to the obligations set out in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 may only be relocated if their fingerprints have been taken. in full respect of the persons’ right to human dignity without recourse to any coercion or detention measure;
Amendment 145 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – introductory part
Article 7 – introductory part
Member States shall increase their support in the area of international protection toif requested by Italy and Greece via the relevant activities coordinated by EASO and other relevant Agencies, in particular by providing when necessary national experts for the following support activities:
Amendment 148 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – point a
Article 7 – point a
(a) the screening of the third-country nationals arriving in Italy and Greece, including their clear identification, fingerprinting and registration of the applications for international protection, in full respect of the persons’ right to human dignity without recourse to any coercion or detention measures;
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 11
Article 11
Italy and Greece shall report to the Council and the Commission on the implementation and the proper use of the funds received in the framework of this Decision, including on the roadmaps referred to in Article 8, every three months.