BETA

38 Amendments of Beatrix von STORCH related to 2016/0133(COD)

Raymond FINCH, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
–

The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Beatrix von STORCH

Draft legislative resolution
Citation 5

~~— having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 19 October 20161 , _________________ 1~~deleted OJ C 34, 2.2.2017, p. 144.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Beatrix von STORCH

Draft legislative resolution
Citation 6

~~— having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 8 December 20162 , _________________ 2Not yet published in the Official Journal.~~deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

(3) The European Council, at its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, agreed to work towards establishing the CEAS, based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 (‘the Geneva Convention’), thus ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution, i.e. maintaining the principle of non- refoulement. In this respect, and without the responsibility criteria laid down in this Regulation being affected, Member States, all respecting the principle of non- refoulement, are considered as safe countries for third-country nationals.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) The European Union Agency for Asylum should provide adequate support in the implementation of this Regulation, in particular by establishing the reference key for the distribution of asylum seekers under the corrective allocation mechanism, and by adapting the figures underlying the reference key annually, as well as the reference key based on Eurostat data.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Raymond FINCH, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) In order to ensure equal treatment for all applicants and beneficiaries of international protection, and consistency with the current Union asylum acquis, in particular with Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , the scope of this Regulation encompasses applicants for subsidiary protection and persons eligible for subsidiary protection. _________________ 18 Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ L 337, 20.12.2011, p. 9).deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the sibling or siblings of the applicant. Reuniting siblings is of particular importance for improving the chances of integration of applicants and hence reducing secondary movements. The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member State. This limited and targeted enlargement of the scope of the definition is expected to reduce the incentive for some secondary movements of asylum seekers within the EU.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20

(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’'s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that that Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representatives tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise. If for any reason the age of the applicant is not clearly over 18 years of age the member state have the full right to medically investigate the applicant to establish the age of the applicant.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27

(27) The detention of applicants should be applied in accordance with the underlying principle that a person should not be held in detention for the sole reason that he or she is seeking international protection. Detention should be for as short a period as possible and subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality. In particular, the detention of applicants must be in accordance with Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. The procedures provided for under this Regulation in respect of a detained person should be applied as a matter of priority, within the shortest possible deadlineis essential to maintaining security in the member states and preventing secondary movements. As regards the general guarantees governing detention, as well as detention conditions, where appropriate, Member States should apply the provisions of Directive 2013/33/EU also to persons detained on the basis of this Regulation.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29

(29) Proper registration of all asylum applications in the EU under a unique application number should help detect multiple applications and prevent irregular secondary movements and asylum shopping. An automated system should be established for the purpose of facilitating the application of this Regulation. It should enable registration of asylum applications lodged in the EU, effective monitoring of the share of applications of each Member State ~~and a correct application of the corrective allocation mechanism~~.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31

(31) In accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty, Union acts should, whenever necessary, contain appropriate measures to give effect to the principle of solidarity. A corrective allocation mechanism should be established in order to ensure a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32

(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35

(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Raymond FINCH, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35

(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52

(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5

~~- the sibling or siblings of the applicant;~~deleted

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point o

~~(o) 'benefitting Member State' means the Member State benefitting from the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation and carrying out the allocation of the applicant;~~deleted

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Raymond FINCH, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q – point ii

~~(ii) ‘subsidiary protection status’ within the meaning of point (g) of Article 2 of Directive 2011/95/EU; or~~deleted

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Raymond FINCH, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q – point iii

~~(iii) any other status which offers similar rights and benefits under national and Union law as those referred to in points (i) and (ii);~~deleted

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1

1. By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation. The Member State which decides to examine an application for international protection pursuant to this paragraph shall become the Member State responsible and shall assume the obligations associated with that responsibility. Where applicable, it shall inform the Member State previously responsible, the Member State conducting a procedure for determining the Member State responsible or the Member State which has been requested to take charge of the applicant. The Member State which becomes responsible pursuant to this paragraph shall forthwith indicate it in Eurodac in accordance with Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] by adding the date when the decision to examine the application was taken.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1

~~1. Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is subject to the procedure established by this Regulation.~~deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2

2. ~~When there is a significant risk of absconding,~~ Member States may detain the person concerned in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with this Regulation~~, on the basis of an individual assessment and only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively~~.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4

When the requesting Member State fails to comply with the deadlines for submitting a take charge request or take back notification or where the transfer does not take place within the period of four weeks referred to in the third subparagraph, the person shall no longer be detained. Articles 24, 26 and 30 shall continue to apply accordingly.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34

1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation. 2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 150% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35. 3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined by applying the key referred to in Article 35 to the total number of applications as well as the total number of resettled persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated system during the preceding 12 months. 4. The automated system shall inform Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum once per week of the Member States' respective shares in applications for which they are the Member State responsible. 5. The automated system shall continuously monitor whether any of the Member States is above the threshold referred to in paragraph 2, and if so, notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold. 6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocation mechanism shall apply.Article 34 deleted General Principle

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35

1. For the purpose of the corrective mechanism, the reference number for each Member State shall be determined by a key. 2. The reference key referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the following criteria for each Member State, according to Eurostat figures: (a) the size of the population (50 % weighting); (b) the total GDP (50% weighting); 3. The criteria referred to in paragraph 2 shall be applied by the formula as set out in Annex I. 4. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall establish the reference key and adapt the figures of the criteria for the reference key as well as the reference key referred to in paragraph 2 annually, based on Eurostat figures.Article 35 deleted Reference key

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36

1. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall apply the reference key referred to in Article 35 to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1) and notify the Member States thereof. 2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefitting Member State after notification of allocation referred to in Article 34(5) shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine the Member State responsible; 3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation. 4. On the basis of the application of the reference key pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the Member State of allocation and communicate this information not later than 72 hours after the registration referred to in Article 22(1) to the benefitting Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2).Article 36 deleted Application of the reference key

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37

1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State. 3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Raymond FINCH, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – title

~~Financial solidarity~~Opt-out

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Raymond FINCH, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1

1. A Member State may~~, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter,~~ enter in the automated system that it will ~~temporarily~~ not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Raymond FINCH, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 2

2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve- month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State.deleted

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Raymond FINCH, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 3

3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.deleted

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Raymond FINCH, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 4

4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3.deleted

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Raymond FINCH, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 5

~~5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.~~deleted

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 39

The Member State of allocation shall: (a) confirm to the benefitting Member State the receipt of the allocation communication and indicate the competent authority to which the applicant shall report following his or her transfer; (b) communicate to the benefitting Member State the arrival of the applicant or the fact that he or she did not appear within the set time limit; (c) receive the applicant and carry out the personal interview pursuant to Article 7, where applicable; (d) examine his or her application for international protection as Member State responsible, unless, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18, a different Member State is responsible for examining the application; (e) where, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18 a different Member State is responsible for examining the application, the Member State of allocation shall request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant; (f) where applicable, communicate to the Member State responsible the transfer to that Member State; (g) where applicable, transfer the applicant to the Member State responsible; (h) where applicable, enter in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2) that it will examine the application for international protection as Member State responsible.Article 39 deleted Obligations of the Member State of allocation

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40

Exchange of relevant information for 1. Where a transfer decision according to point (a) of Article 38 is taken, the benefitting Member State shall transmit, at the same time and for the sole purpose of verifying whether the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the fingerprint data of the applicant taken pursuant to Regulation (Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation 603/2013/EU) to the Member State of allocation. 2. Where, following a security verification, information on an applicant reveals that he or she is for serious reasons considered to be a danger to the national security or public order, information on the nature of the alert shall be shared with the law enforcement authorities in the benefitting Member State and shall not be communicated via the electronic communication channels referred to in Article 47(4). The Member State of allocation shall inform the benefitting Member State of the existence of such alert, specifying the law enforcement authorities in the Member State of application that have been fully informed, and record the existence of the alert in the automated system pursuant to point d of Article 23(2), within one week of receipt of the fingerprints. 3. Where the outcome of the security verification confirms that the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public order, the benefitting Member State of application shall be the Member State responsible and shall examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU. 4. The information exchanged shall only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1 and shall not be further processed.Article 40 deleted security verification

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41

~~1. Chapter V and Sections II to VII of Chapter VI shall apply mutatis mutandis. 2. Family members to whom the procedure for allocation applies shall be allocated to the same Member State.~~Article 41 deleted Procedure for allocation

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42

For the costs to transfer an applicant to the Member State of allocation, the benefitting Member State shall be refunded by a lump sum of EUR 500 for each person transferred pursuant to Article 38(c). This financial support shall be implemented by applying the procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.Article 42 deleted Costs of allocation transfers

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Kristina WINBERG, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43

Cessation of corrective allocation The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 150 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1). Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 2, the application of the corrective allocation shall cease for that Member State.Article 43 deleted

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE