BETA

Activities of Hélène FLAUTRE related to 2009/0165(COD)

Plenary speeches (1)

Granting and withdrawing international protection (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0165(COD)

Shadow reports (2)

RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) PDF (133 KB) DOC (69 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: LIBE
Dossiers: 2009/0165(COD)
Documents: PDF(133 KB) DOC(69 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) PDF (429 KB) DOC (581 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: LIBE
Dossiers: 2009/0165(COD)
Documents: PDF(429 KB) DOC(581 KB)

Amendments (73)

Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
(18) In the interests of a correct recognition of those persons in need of protection as refugees within the meaning of Article 1 of the Geneva Convention or as persons eligible for subsidiary protection, every applicant should have an effective access to procedures, the opportunity to cooperate and properly communicate with the competent authorities so as to present the relevant facts of his/her case and sufficienteffective procedural guarantees to pursue his/her case throughout all stages of the procedure. Moreover, the procedure in which an application for international protection is examined shouldmust normally provide an applicant at least with the right to stay pending a decision by the determining authority and, in the case of a negative decision, the time necessary for seeking a judicial remedy, access to the services of an interpreter for submitting his/her case if interviewed by the authorities, the opportunity to communicate with a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and with organizations providing advice or counselling to applicants for international protection , the right to appropriate notification of a decision, a motivation of that decision in fact and in law, the opportunity to consult a legal adviser or other counsellor, and the right to be informed of his/her legal position at decisive moments in the course of the procedure, in a language he/she can reasonably be supposed to understand and, in the case of a negative decision, the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) In addition, special procedural guarantees for vulnerable applicants, such as minors, unaccompanied minors, pregnant women, persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious acts of violence or disabled persons, should be laid down in order to create the conditions necessary for their effective access to procedures and presenting the elements needed to substantiate the application for international protection.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
(22) With a view to ensuring substantive equality between female and male applicants, examination procedures should be gender sensitive. In particular, personal interviews should be organised in a way which makes its possible for both female and male applicants to speak about their past experiences in cases involving gender based persecution to an interviewer of the same sex if so requested, who has specific training on the issue of interviews regarding gender based prosecution. The complexity of gender related claims should be properly taken into account in procedures based on the safe third country concept, the safe country of origin concept or the notion of subsequent applications.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
(24) Procedures for examining international protection needs should be organised in a way that makes it possible for the competentdetermining authorities to conduct a rigorous examination of applications for international protection.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
(25) Where an applicant makes a subsequent application without presenting new evidence or arguments, it would be disproportionate to oblige Member Statdetermining authorities to carry out a new full examination procedure. In these cases, Member Statthe determining authorities should be able to dismiss an application as inadmissible in accordance with the res judicata principle.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
(26) Many applications for international protection are made at the border or in a transit zone of a Member State prior to a decision on the entry of the applicant. Member StatDetermining authorities should be able to provide for admissibility and/or substantive examination procedures which make it possible to decide on applications made at the border or in transit zones at those locations.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
(27) A key consideration for the well- foundedness of an application for international protection is the safety of the applicant in his/her country of origin. Where a third country can be regarded as a safe country of origin, Member States should be able to designate it as safe and presume its safety for a particular applicant, unless he/she presents counter- indications.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
(28) Given the level of harmonisation achieved on the qualification of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees, common criteria for designating third countries as safe countries of origin should be established.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
(29) The designation of a third country as a safe country of origin for the purposes of this Directive cannot establish an absolute guarantee of safety for nationals of that country. By its very nature, the assessment underlying the designation can only take into account the general civil, legal and political circumstances in that country and whether actors of persecution, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are subject to sanction in practice when found liable in the country concerned. For this reason, it is important that, where an applicant shows that there are valid reasons to consider the country not to be safe in his/her particular circumstances, the designation of the country as safe can no longer be considered relevant for him/her.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
(30) Member States should examine all applications on the substance, i.e. assess whether the applicant in question qualifies for international protection in accordance with Directive […/../EC] [the Qualification Directive] except where the present Directive provides otherwise, in particular where it can be reasonably asensumred that another country would do the examination or provide suaccessible and efficient protection. In particular, Member States should not be obliged to assess the substance of an application for international protection where a first country of asylum has granted the applicant refugee status or otherwise sufficient protection and the applicant will be readmitted to this country.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
(31) Member States should also not be obliged to assess the substance of an application for international protection where the applicant, due to a sufficient connection to a third country as defined by national law, can reasonably be expected to seek protection in that third country , and there are grounds for considering that the applicant will be admitted or re-admitted to that country . Member States should only proceed on this basis where this particular applicant would be safe in the third country concerned. In order to avoid secondary movements of applicants, common principles for the consideration or designation by Member States of third countries as safe should be established.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
(32) Furthermore, with respect to certain European third countries, which observe particularly high human rights and refugee protection standards, Member States should be allowed to not carry out, or not to carry out full examination of asylum applications regarding applicants who enter their territory from such European third countries.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point d
(d) ‘applicant with special needs’ means an applicant who due to age, gender, gender identity, disability, mental health problems or consequences of torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence is in need of special guarantees in order to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations in accordance with this Directive;
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. However, Member States may provide that another authority is responsible for the purpose of processing cases pursuant to Regulation (EC) No …/…. [the Dublin Regulation].deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 94 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Where an authority is designated in accordance with paragraph 3, Member States shall ensure that the personnel of that authority have the appropriate knowledge or receive the necessary training to fulfil their obligations when implementing this Directive.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1
8. Member States shall ensure that border guards, police and immigration authorities, and personnel of detention facilities have instructions and receive necessary training for dealing withaccepting and registering applications for international protection. If these authorities are designated as competent authorities pursuant to paragraph 1, the instructions shall include an obligation to register the application. In other cases, the instructions shall require to forward the application to the authority competent for this registrThe instructions shall then require the application to be forwarded to the authority competent for processing the registered application together with all relevant information.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 98 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall provide for free interpretation arrangements in order to ensure communication between persons who wish to make an application for international protection and border guards or personnel of detention facilities.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 102 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
3. Member States shall ensure that organizations providing advice and counseling to applicants for international protection have unobstructed access to the border crossing points, including transit zones, and detention facilities subject to an agreement with the competent authorities of the Member State.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Applicants shall be allowed to remain in the Member State, for the sole purpose of the procedure, until the determining authority has made a decision in accordance with the procedures at first instance set out in Chapter III. This right to remain shall not constitute an entitlement to a residence permit.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 108 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. A Member State may extradite an applicant to a third country pursuant to paragraph 2 only where the competentdetermining authorities are satisfiedcertain that an extradition decision will not result in direct or indirect refoulement in violation of international obligations of the Member State.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 113 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) the personnel examining applications and taking decisions are instructed and have the possibility to seek advice, whenever necessary, from experts on particular issues, such as medical, cultural, child or, gender or sexual orientation issues.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 116 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
2. Member States shall also ensure that, where an application is rejected with regard to refugee status and/or subsidiary protection status, the reasons in fact and in law are stated in the decision and information on how to challenge a negative decision is given in writing and signed upon receipt by the recipient.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 118 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Member States need not provide information on how to challenge a negative decision in writing in conjunction with a decision where the applicant has been provided with this information at an earlier stage either in writing or by electronic means accessible to the applicant.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. Paragraph 3 shall not apply to cases where disclosure of particular circumstances of a person to members of his/her family can jeopardize the interests of that person, including cases involving gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and/or age based persecution. In such cases, a separate decision shall be issued to the person concerned.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) they shall be informed in a language which they may reasonably be supposed to understand of the procedure to be followed and of their rights and obligations during the procedure and the possible consequences of not complying with their obligations and not cooperating with the authorities. They shall be informed of the time-frame, as well as the means at their disposal for fulfilling the obligation to submit the elements as referred to in Article 4 of Directive […./../EC] [the Qualification Directive ]. This information shall be given in timesufficiently in advance in order to enable them to exercise the rights guaranteed in this Directive and to comply with the obligations described in Article 12;
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Applicants for international protection shall cooperate, to the extent of their physical and psychological capacities, with the competent authorities with a view to establishing their identity and other elements referred to in Article 4(2) of Directive […./../EC] [the Qualification Directive]. Member States may impose upon applicants other obligations to cooperate with the competent authorities insofar as these obligations are necessary for the processing of the application.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 131 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) applicants are required to inform the competent authorities of their current place of residence or address and of any changes thereof as soon as possible. Member States may provide that the applicant shall have to accept any communication at the most recent place of residence or address which he/she indicated accordingly; the address of a civil society organisation may be used as a registration address;
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) the competent authorities may search the applicant and the items he/she carries with him/her, provided the search is carried out by a person of the same sex and fully respects the principle of human dignity and physical and mental integrity;
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Before a decision is taken by the determining authority, the applicant shall be given the opportunity of a personal interview on his/her application for international protection in a language which he/she understands with a person competent under national law to conduct such an interview. Interviews on the substance of an application for international protection shall always be conducted by the personnel of the determining authority.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the competentdetermining authority is of the opinion that the applicant is unfit or unable to be interviewed owing to enduring circumstances beyond his/her control. When in doubt, the competentdetermining authority shall consult a medical expert to establish whether the condition is temporary or permanent.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where the Member Statedetermining authority does not provide the applicant with the opportunity for a personal interview pursuant to point (b), or where applicable, to the dependant, reasonable efforts shall be made tothe determining authority shall allow the applicant or the dependant to reschedule the personal interview and to submit further information.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The absence of a personal interview in accordance with this Article shall not prevent the determining authority from taking a decision on an application for international protection .deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) ensure that the person who conducts the interview is qualified, trained and competent to take account of the personal orand general circumstances surrounding the application, including the applicant's cultural origin, gender, sexual orientation or vulnerability;
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) wherever possible, provide for the interview with the applicant to be conducted by a person of the same sex if the applicant concerned so requests;
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) select a qualified, trained and competent interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person who conducts the interview. The communication need not necessarily take place in the language preferred by the applicant if there is another language which he/she understands and in which he/she is able to communicate clearly. Wherever possible, Member States shall provide an interpreter of the same sex if the applicant so requests;
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 147 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall ensure that applicants have timelyimmediate access to the transcript and, where applicable, the report of the personal interview before the determining authority takes a decision.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Member States shall ensure that free legal assistance and/or representation be granted on request, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3in accordance with paragraph 1 be granted on request. To that end, Member States shall:
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) provide for free legal assistance in procedures in accordance with Chapter III. This shall include, at least, the provision of information on the procedure to the applicant in the light of his/her particular circumstances, assistance in the preparation or gathering of supporting documents, representation at all stages of the procedure, including at the personal interview, and explanations of reasons in fact and in law in the case of a negative decision;
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) only to those who lack sufficient resources; and/ordeleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 168 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) only to legal advisers or other counsellors specifically designated by national law to assist and/or represent applicants for international protection.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 5
5. Member States mayshall allow and facilitate the provision by non- governmental organisations to provideof free legal assistance and/or representation to applicants for international protection in procedures provided for in Chapter III and/or Chapter V.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 177 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 7
7. Member States may demand to be reimbursed wholly or partially for any expenses granted if and when the applicant's financial situation has improved considerably or if the decision to grant such benefits was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the applicant.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that a legal adviser or other counsellor admitted or permitted as such under national law, and who assists or represents an applicant for international protection under the terms of national law, shall enjoy access to the information infull and immediate access to the applicant's file upon which a decision is or will be made.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 186 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) as soon as possibleimmediately take measures to ensure that a representative represents and assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the lodging and the examination of the application. The representative shall be impartial and have the necessary expertise in the field of childcare. This representative can also be the representative referred to in Directive […/…/EC]17 [the Reception Conditions Directive];
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 187 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) ensure that the representative is given the opportunity to informs the unaccompanied minor about the meaning and possible consequences of the personal interview and, where appropriate, how to prepare himself/herself for the personal interview. Member States shall ensure that a representative and/or a legal advisor or other counsellor admitted as such under national law are present at that interview and have an opportunity to ask questions or make comments, within the framework set by the person who conducts the interview.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 197 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
5. Member States may use medical examinations to determine the age of unaccompanied minors within the framework of the examination of an application for international protection , where, following his/her general statements or other relevant evidence, Member States still have doubts concerning his/her age. In case of doubt; any decision shall be in favour of the minor.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 199 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Any medical examination shall be performed in full respect of the individual's dignity, selecting the most reliable and less invasive examinations.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 203 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 a (new)
Article 22a Detention of minors The detention of minors shall be strictly prohibited in all circumstances.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 1
1. Insofar as Member States provide for the possibility of explicit withdrawal of the application under national law, when an applicant explicitly withdraws his/her application for international protection , Member States shall ensure that the determining authority takes a decision to either discontinue the examination or reject the application, and explain to the applicant the consequences of the withdrawal.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 212 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 3
3. This Article shall be without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No …/…. [the Dublin Regulation].deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 213 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) to have immediate access to applicants for international protection , including those in detention and in airport or port transit zones;
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 214 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) to have immediate and full access to information on individual applications for international protection , on the course of the procedure and on the decisions taken, provided that the applicant agrees thereto;
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 216 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) receive, upon his/her request, information on the reasons for the delay and the time-frame within which the decision on his/her application is to be expected.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 218 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Member StatThe determining authorities may prioritise an examination of an application for international protection in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II:
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 220 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) in other cases, including for environmental and/ or climate reasons, with the exception of applications referred to in paragraph 6.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 221 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 6
6. Member States may provide that an examination procedure in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II be accelerated if: (a) the applicant, in submitting his/her application and presenting the facts, has only raised issues that are not relevant to the examination of whether he/she qualifies as a refugee or a person eligible for subsidiary protection by virtue of Directive […./../EC] [the Qualification Directive] ; or (b) the applicant is from a safe country of origin within the meaning of this Directive , or (c) the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his/her identity and/or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision; or (d) it is likely that, in bad faith, he/she has destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped establish his/her identity or nationality; or (e) the application was made by an unmarried minor to whom Article 6 (7) (c) applies, after the application of the parents or parent responsible for the minor has been rejected and no relevant new elements were raised with respect to his/her particular circumstances or to the situation in his/her country of origin; or (f) the applicant is making an application merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of an earlier or imminent decision which would result in his/her removal.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 234 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 8
8. Member States shall lay down reasonable time limits for the adoption of a decision in the procedure at first instance pursuant to paragraph 6.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 236 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant, pursuant to Article 31;deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 237 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) a country which is not a Member State is considered as a safe third country for the applicant, pursuant to Article 32;deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 239 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 30 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No …/…. [the Dublin Regulation].deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 1
A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant for international protection if: (a) he/she has been recognised in that country as a refugee and he/she can still avail himself/herself of that protection; or (b) he/she otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting from the principle of non- refoulement; provided that he/she will be readmitted to that country.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 241 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 1 - point b
(b) he/she otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting from the principle of non- refoulement;deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 242 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 2
In applying the concept of first country of asylum to the particular circumstances of an applicant for international protection Member States may take into account Article 32 (1).deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 243 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 32
The safe third country concept 1. Member States may apply the safe third country concept only where the competent authorities are satisfied that a person seeking international protection will be treated in accordance with the following principles in the third country concerned: (a) life and liberty are not threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; (b) there is no risk of serious harm as defined in [Directive …./../EC] [the Qualification Directive]; (c) the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with the Geneva Convention is respected; (d) the prohibition of removal, in violation of the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as laid down in international law, is respected; and (e) the possibility exists to request refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention. 2. The application of the safe third country concept shall be subject to rules laid down in national legislation, including: (a) rules requiring a connection between the person seeking international protection and the third country concerned on the basis of which it would be reasonable for that person to go to that country; (b) rules on the methodology by which the competent authorities satisfy themselves that the safe third country concept may be applied to a particular country or to a particular applicant. Such methodology shall include case-by-case consideration of the safety of the country for a particular applicant and/or national designation of countries considered to be generally safe; (c) rules in accordance with international law, allowing an individual examination of whether the third country concerned is safe for a particular applicant which, as a minimum, shall permit the applicant to challenge the application of the safe third country concept on the grounds that the third country is not safe in his/her particular circumstances. The applicant shall also be allowed to challenge the existence of a connection between him/her and the third country in accordance with point (a) .When implementing a decision solely based on this Article, Member States shall: 3. When implementing a decision solely based on this Article, Member States shall: (a) inform the applicant accordingly; and (b) provide him/her with a document informing the authorities of the third country, in the language of that country, that the application has not been examined in substance. 4. Where the third country does not permit the applicant for international protection to enter its territory, Member States shall ensure that access to a procedure is given in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees described in Chapter II. 5. Member States shall inform the Commission periodically of the countries to which this concept is applied in accordance with the provisions of this Article.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 249 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 33
National designation of third countries as safe countries of origin 1. Member States may retain or introduce legislation that allows, in accordance with Annex II, for the national designation of safe countries of origin for the purposes of examining applications for international protection . 2. new Member States shall ensure a regular review of the situation in third countries designated as safe in accordance with this Article. 3. The assessment of whether a country is a safe country of origin in accordance with this Article shall be based on a range of sources of information, including in particular information from other Member States, the European Asylum Support Office, the UNHCR, the Council of Europe and other relevant international organisations. 4. Member States shall notify to the Commission the countries that are designated as safe countries of origin in accordance with this Article.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 251 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 34
The safe country of origin concept 1. A third country designated as a safe country of origin in accordance with this Directive may, after an individual examination of the application, be considered as a safe country of origin for a particular applicant only if: (a) he/she has the nationality of that country; or (b) he/she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country; (c) and he/she has not submitted any serious grounds for considering the country not to be a safe country of origin in his/her particular circumstances and in terms of his/her qualification as a refugee or a person eligible for subsidiary protection in accordance with [Directive …./../EC] [the Qualification Directive] . 2. Member States shall lay down in national legislation further rules and modalities for the application of the safe country of origin concept.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 261 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 35 – paragraph 9
9. Where a person with regard to whom a transfer decision has to be enforced pursuant to Regulation (EC) […/…] [the Dublin Regulation] makes further representations or a subsequent application in the transferring Member State, those representations or subsequent applications shall be examined by the responsible Member State, as defined in Regulation (EC) […/…] [the Dublin Regulation], in accordance with this Directive.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 264 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States may provide for procedures, in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II, in order for determining authorities to decide at the border or transit zones of the Member State on:
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 266 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that a decision in the framework of the procedures provided for in paragraph 1 is taken within a reasonable time and as long as these third country nationals or stateless persons are accommodated normally at locations close to the border or transit zone. When a decision has not been taken within four weeks, the applicant shall be granted entry to the territory of the Member State in order for his/her application to be processed in accordance with the other provisions of this Directive.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 38
The European safe third countries concept 1. Member States may provide that no, or no full, examination of the asylum application and of the safety of the applicant in his/her particular circumstances as described in Chapter II, shall take place in cases where a competent authority has established, on the basis of the facts, that the applicant for international protection is seeking to enter or has entered illegally into its territory from a safe third country according to paragraph 2. 2. A third country can only be considered as a safe third country for the purposes of paragraph 1 where: (a) it has ratified and observes the provisions of the Geneva Convention without any geographical limitations; (b) it has in place an asylum procedure prescribed by law; and (c) it has ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and observes its provisions, including the standards relating to effective remedies. 3. The Member States concerned shall lay down in national law the modalities for implementing the provisions of paragraph 1 and the consequences of decisions pursuant to those provisions in accordance with the principle of non- refoulement , including providing for exceptions from the application of this Article for humanitarian or political reasons or for reasons of public international law. 4. When implementing a decision solely based on this Article, the Member States concerned shall: (a) inform the applicant accordingly; and (b) provide him/her with a document informing the authorities of the third country, in the language of that country, that the application has not been examined in substance. 5. Where the safe third country does not re-admit the applicant for asylum, Member States shall ensure that access to a procedure is given in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees described in Chapter II.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 271 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) where information on an individual case is collected for the purposes of reconsidering the international protection status, it is not obtained from the actor(s) of persecution or serious harm in a manner that would result in such actor(s) being directly or indirectly informed of the fact that the person concerned is a beneficiary of international protection whose status is under reconsideration, nor jeopardise the physical integrity of the person and his/her dependants, or the liberty and security of his/her family members still living in the country of origin.
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 277 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 41 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
6. In the case of a decision taken in the accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 27 (6) and of a decision to consider an application inadmissible pursuant to Article 29 (2) (d), and where the right to remain in the Member State pending the outcome of the remedy is not foreseen under national legislation, a court or tribunal shall have the power to rule whether or not the applicant may remain on the territory of the Member State, either upon request of the concerned applicant or acting on its own motion.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 286 #
Proposal for a directive
Annex II
Designation of safe countries of origin for the purposes of Article 33(1) A country is considered as a safe country of origin where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is generally and consistently no persecution as defined in Article 9 of Directive […./../EC] [the Qualification Directive], no torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and no threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. In making this assessment, account shall be taken, inter alia, of the extent to which protection is provided against persecution or mistreatment by: (a) the relevant laws and regulations of the country and the manner in which they are applied; (b) observance of the rights and freedoms laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and/or the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and/or the Convention against Torture, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the said European Convention; (c) respect of the non-refoulement principle according to the Geneva Convention; (d) provision for a system of effective remedies against violations of these rights and freedoms.deleted
2011/01/24
Committee: LIBE