27 Amendments of Sophia IN 'T VELD related to 2019/2206(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
— having regard to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 18, 19 and 1847 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
— having regard to Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 813 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR),
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 a (new)
Citation 19 a (new)
— having regard to the report of the European Asylum Support Office of June 2020, entitled ‘Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the European Union’,
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas the implementation of the Dublin regulation is closely linked to the implementation of other files of the European asylum and migration policy; whereas these pieces of legislations and policies impact the efficiency of the Dublin regulation and therefore need to be considered in its evaluation;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas early 2020, about 855,000 asylum applications were still pending in the EU+;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas in the recent years a significant new trend was an increase in the number of applications lodged by third-country nationals who travel visa- free or with a short-term visa to enter the Schengen area; whereas in 2019 the number of applications lodged by third- country nationals who travelled visa-free accounted for one-quarter of all applications; whereas the rate of protection of these third-country nationals is often low while the volume of application is high; whereas visa waiver or short-term visa also represent a regular and safe path to enter the EU for third- country nationals eligible to international protection;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas in the recent years the main countries of origin of asylum seekers in the EU+ are Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, countries torn by civil war, violence and conflict; whereas in 2019, three countries of origin accounted for one-quarter of all applications for international protection in EU+, naming Syria, Afghanistan, and Venezuela;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas one-third of the Member States currently play host toed 90% of asylum seekers between 2008-17;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas several “first-entry” Member States in the Mediterranean, Greece, Italy, Malta, Cyprus and Spain, received a large part of first time applications, in particular during the 2015-16 crisis; whereas a strong burden is put on first-entry countries to determine the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection in accordance to the Dublin regulation;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas in 2018, Germany recorded the largest number of applications (184,180, or 28% of the total), followed by France (120,425 applications, or 19%), Greece (66,695 applications, or 11%), Italy (59,950 applications, or 10%) and Spain(52,700 applications, or 9%);
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
Bc. whereas there are significant divergences between Member States in terms of safe-country of origin analysis;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the temporary solidarity mechanism for Search and Rescue in the Mediterranean settled by the Malta declaration, and signed on 23rd September 2019 by Germany, France, Italy and Malta, was valid for a period of at least six months; whereas no other Member State joined this ad hoc agreement;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas information gaps do not allow for a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of Dublin regulation; whereas statistical information is not provided to the same degree or frequency between the Member States; whereas key information gaps cover grounds for requests, duration of procedures, resources, withdrawn applications, failed transfers, appeal, processes and detention;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the Dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of Member States, in particular when influxes of migrants occur; considers that the first- entry criterion in Dublin put an unprecedented and disproportionate burden on frontline countries in 2015-16 in terms of registration and reception of asylum seekers; stresses that the introduction of hotspots and a temporary relocation programme as proposed by the Commission in 2015 was intended to rebalance the management of asylum- seekers when entering the EU territory, as a pragmatic approach compared to the strict application of Dublin regulation principles; takes the view that the EU therefore needs a solidarity mechanism which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among Member States in accordance with article 80 TFEU, including through relocation on the basis of objective criteria of asylum seekers who are manifestly eligible for asylum;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the crisis management tool provided for in Article 33 did not provide effective support to the Member States, nor did it offer a response to the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis; notes that Article 33 has actually never been applied, not even during the migration crisis in 2015-16; considers that a solidarity-based crisis management mechanism, endowed with a financial instrument managed by the Commission, should be established to ensure continuity of the right of asylum in the EU under the best possible conditions;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. CUnderlines that the discretionary clause of article 17 which grants discretion to a Member State to undertake responsibility for an asylum application is used with parsimony and only by few Member States; notes that Germany, Netherlands and France accounted for the majority of cases in 2018; calls on the Member States to make use of the discretionary clause in Article 17 when exceptional circumstances so warrant, for example to relocate asylum seekers currently living in the Greek hotspots in an atmosphere of extreme tension and to provide decent reception conditions;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applyingPoints out numerous and systematic deficiencies as regards compliance with the hierarchy of criteria; stresses that family unity is far from being the most frequent criterion applied, whereas it is at the top of the hierarchy according to chapter III of the regulation; notes for instance that the family reunificationt criterion and to harmonise the standard of proof required; calls on the Member States and the Commission to protect the best interests of children and to clarify the criteria for keeping children in detentionwas invoked in 5% of “take charge” requests in France (out of 12 000) and in 3.7% in Germany (out of 17 500), and in even lower figures in Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland; underlines on the contrary that Greece issued 79.3% of its “take charge” request on the basis of the family unity criterion in 2018; also stresses that applications for family reunification are less frequently accepted (48% of cases), compared to the average rate of acceptance for all procedures (67.6%); Calls on the Commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion and to harmonise the standard of proof required; recalls that the best interest of the child should be the primary consideration in all Dublin procedures according to the regulation; notes that good practices are developed in certain Member States, such as the use of specialised staff for unaccompanied minors or the multidisciplinary approach to determine the age; yet, is deeply concerned that the appointment of a representative to assist unaccompanied minors with respect to Dublin procedures is often delayed or not assured in many Member States due to practical challenges; also notes that the representatives in some countries are insufficiently informed about Dublin procedures and that unaccompanied minors lack child-friendly support; calls on the Member States and the Commission to better protect the best interests of children;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, in 2016-17, generating considerable human, material and financial costs; deplores, however, the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out, a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between Member States; regards efforts to combat secondary movements as essential in order to reduce the number of transfer requests; proposes that the conditions which trigger transfer procedures be clarified and harmonisedunderlines that between 2016 and 2019, Germany and France issued by far the most requests (68% of the total for the two countries alone), while Spain, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Poland and Czech Republic issued few Dublin requests; stresses that Spain issued almost no Dublin requests, despite a large and growing number of asylum applications; deplores, however, the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out, a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; underlines that there are significant differences between countries, with 54.6% of transfers carried out from Greece, 42.2% from Sweden, 11.2% from Germany, 6.7% from France, and 1.6% from Italy between 2016 and 2019, while noting significant information gap for a number of countries;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Highlight the important body of ECtHR and CJEU case law in the recent years that clarified the admissible grounds for denying Dublin transfers, in particular any source of risk to the individual; notes in particular an increasing amount of decisions from European and nationals courts to suspend transfers to Member States where an asylum seeker would be unfairly denied international protection (indirect refoulement) or would be denied their rights in the Dublin procedure; deplores that asylum seekers are victims of inhumane or degrading treatment in certain Member States;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Notes that shortages in terms of structural organisation, resources and functioning of national asylum authority contributed to delay Dublin procedures and hindered the application of the Regulation; notes that while most countries entrusted one specialised authority for asylum, some Member States have chosen to separate the responsibility between different authorities, creating in certain cases practical complexities for asylum seekers and divergences in the implementation of the regulation;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Stresses that the efficiency of Dublin procedures also depends on the quality and size of staff in each national asylum authority; notes important gaps between asylum authorities in terms of number of staff per asylum applicants; stresses that national Dublin Units are understaffed while facing significant increase in their workload;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 d (new)
Paragraph 9 d (new)
9d. Stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between Member States; notes that “take back” requests have been the dominant form of Dublin procedures in recent years, meaning that most persons placed in a Dublin procedure had already applied for asylum in another Member State; regards efforts to combat secondary movements as essential in order to reduce the number of transfer requests; stresses that the strict application of the “irregular entry” criterion puts a disproportionate burden on first-entry countries, who often lack resources and capacities to host and register asylum seekers; recalls that the time limits at each stages of the Dublin procedure are meant to keep the procedure short and enable fast access to the asylum procedure; notes that there are still a lack of clarity and variations between the Member States for the calculation of time limits and the point at which the clock starts for each procedure; proposes that the conditions which trigger transfer procedures be clarified and harmonised;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection with Dublin procedures, in particular in the hotspots, would simplify the process of obtaining asylum and improve decision- making; calls on the Member States to improve the information made available to asylum seekers on the complex Dublin procedures, to ensure that it is clear and accessible to everyone;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. TStresses that the Commission's network of Member States’ Dublin units met only once or twice a year and did not have an operational role; notes however that the EASO Dublin Units Network has been more active and that EASO has carried-out a number of useful missions in support to Member States for implementing the Dublin regulation, such as the production of guidance documents and analysis, or the deployment of agents; takes the view that closer cooperation between national asylum authorities is needed, in order to share information and streamline transfers; proposes that EASO be given the task of drawing up enhanced governance arrangements for the application of the Dublin III Regulation, including a monthly operational dialogue between national authorities, and a platform for the exchange and sharing of information and best practices;
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. UNotes that bilateral agreements have been concluded between Member States to improve the efficiency of Dublin procedures or ensure the transfer of asylum seekers; urges the Commission and the Council to work towards convergence in the bilateral agreements concluded between Member States and with third countries, in order to optimise implementation of the Dublin III Regulation;
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Considers that the implementation of the Dublin regulation is not effective as the primary objectives are not met, i.e. a swift and fair determination of the Member States responsible for an application to international protection; recalls that significant gaps of implementation are identified for a number of Dublin provisions; stresses that the regulation is highly inefficient with regard to the cost of implementation compared to the efficiency of the regulation;