96 Amendments of Jean LAMBERT related to 2016/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the sibling or siblings, grandparents and uncles or aunts of the applicant. Reuniting siblings, grandparents and uncles or aunts 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.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

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 presence of family members should become a binding responsibility criterion. In particular, 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~~is present, provided that, following a multidisciplinary assessment of the child's best interests, 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~~obtain individualised guarantees from that Member State that it 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~~guardian tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision on responsibility or to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an multidisciplinary assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise and the participation of his or her guardian and legal advisor or counsellor.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Jean LAMBERT, Judith SARGENTINI, Ska KELLER, Bodil VALERO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) A~~ssuming responsibility by a Member State~~ Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria for example on humanitarian grounds, in particular for exfaminly reasons, and examinge an application ~~lodged with it in cases when~~for international protection lodged with it or with another Member State, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the binding criteria laid down in this Regulation may undermine the effectiveness and sustainability of the system and should be exceptional. Therefore, a Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria only on humanitarian grounds, in particular for family reasons, before a Member State responsible has been determined and examine an application for international protection lodged with it or with another Member State, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the binding criteria laid down in this Regulat. In order to ensure full respect of the applicant's right to private and family life, and in order to improve the prospects of long-term integration of the applicants, the existence of meaningful links with a Member State, including language skills, education, professional skills or cultural ties which would facilitate his or her integration, should become a binding responsibility criterion.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22

(22) In order to ensure that the aims of this Regulation are achieved and obstacles to its application are prevented, in particular in order to avoid absconding and secondary movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation of those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are coveredIn line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the reception needs, including access to healthcare, education and housing of that person are covered. The meaning of absconding should be strictly defined, in line with guidelines set up by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, and based on an assessment of the individual circumstances of the person involved carried out by a judicial authority, as encompassing both a deliberate action to avoid the applicable asylum procedures and the factual circumstance of not remaining available to the relevant authorities. Irregular entry, lack of an address or documents proving the identity of an applicant shall never constitute valid criteria to determine the existence of a risk of absconding.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) A personal interview with the applicant should be organised in order to facilitate the determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection ~~unless the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible~~. As soon as the application for international protection is ~~lodg~~registered, the applicant should be informed in particular of the application of this Regulation, of the ~~lack of choice as to~~procedure determining which Member State will examine his or her asylum application;, including the possibility to be transferred to a Member State where family members are present and with which the applicant has meaningful links, including language skills, education, professional skills or cultural ties and of his or her obligations under this Regulation and of ~~the~~any consequences of not complying with them.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24

(24) In order to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the persons concerned, legal safeguards and the right to an effective remedy in respect of decisions regarding transfers to the Member State responsible should be established, in accordance, in particular, with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. An effective remedy should also be provided in situations when no transfer decision is taken but the applicant claims that another Member State is responsible on the basis that he has a family member or~~, for unaccompanied minors,~~ a relative in another Member State. In order to ensure that international law is respected, an effective remedy against such decisions should cover both the examination of the application of this Regulation and of the legal and factual situation in the Member State to which the applicant is transferred. The scope of the effective remedy should be limited to an assessment of whether applicants' fundamental rights to respect of family life, the rights of the child, or the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment risk to be infringed upon.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25

(25) The Member State which is determined as responsible under this Regulation should remain responsible for examination of each and every application of that applicant, including any subsequent application, in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States. Provisions in Regulation (EU) 604/2013 which had provided for the cessation of responsibility in certain circumstances, including when deadlines for the carrying out of transfers had elapsed for a certain period of time, had created an incentive for absconding, and should therefore be removed.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

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 1580% 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.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33

(33) When the allocation mechanism applies, the applicants who lodged their applications in the benefitting Member State should be allocated to Member States which are below their share of applications on the basis of the reference key as applied to those Member States. Appropriate rules should be provided for in cases where an applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to national security or public order, especially rules as regards the exchange of information between competent asylum authorities of Member States. After the transfer, the Member State of allocation should determine the Member State responsible, and should become responsible for examining the application, unless the overriding responsible criteria, related in particular to the presence of family members or meaningful links with a Member State, including language skills, education, professional skills or cultural ties, determine that a different Member State should be responsible.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

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.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38

(38) The [General Data Protection Regulation (EU) .../2016] applies to the processing of personal data by the Member States under this Regulation from the date set out in that Regulation; until this date Directive 95/46/EC applies. Member States should implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with that Regulation and the provisions specifying its requirements in this Regulation. In particular those measures should ensure the security of personal data processed under this Regulation and in particular to prevent unlawful or unauthorised access or disclosure, alteration or loss of personal data processed. In particular, data subjects should be notified without undue delay when a security incident is likely to result in a high risk to their rights and freedoms. The competent supervisory authority or authorities of each Member State should monitor the lawfulness of the processing of personal data by the authorities concerned, including of the transmission to and from the automated system and to the authorities competent for carrying out security checks.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38 a (new)

(38a) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data applies to the processing of personal data by the European Union Agency for Asylum.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Jean LAMBERT, Ska KELLER, Judith SARGENTINI, Bodil VALERO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48

(48) In order to provide for supplementary rules, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the identification of family members or, relatives or any other family relativeons of an unaccompanied minor; the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a relative to take care of an unaccompanied minor, including where family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor stay in more than one Member State; the elements for assessing a dependency link; the elements for assessing a private sponsorship; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a person to take care of a dependent person; the criteria for assessing the existence of meaningful links to a certain Member State, including language skills, education, professional skills or cultural ties; standard operating protocols for the determination of the best interests of a child and the elements to be taken into account in order to assess the inability to travel for a significant period of time. In exercising its powers to adopt delegated acts, the Commission shall not exceed the scope of the best interests of the child as provided for under Article 8 of this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. .

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – introductory part

(g) ‘family members’ means~~, insofar as the family already existed before the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States ,~~ the following members of the applicant’s family who are present on the territory of the Member States:

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

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

- the spouse of the applicant or his or her unmarried partner in a stable relationship, where the law or practice of the Member State concerned treats unmarried couples in a way comparable to married couples under its law relating to third-country nationals, where a Member State does not recognise such a relationship, the applicant(s) shall be relocated to a Member State where such a relationship is recognized;

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

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

- the ~~minor~~ children of couples referred to in the first indent or of the applicant, ~~on condition that they are unmarried and~~ regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law,

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 3

- when the applicant is a minor ~~and unmarried~~, the father, mother or another adult responsible for the applicant, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the adult is present,

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 4

- when the beneficiary of international protection is a minor ~~and unmarried~~, the father, mother or another adult responsible for him or her whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the beneficiary is present,

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

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

- the father or mother, grandmother, grandfather, aunt or uncle of the applicant, regardless of whether the applicant was born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law;

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

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

(n) ‘risk of absconding’ means the proven existence of reasons in an individual case, which are based on specific and objective criteria strictly defined by law, in line with guidelines set up by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, to believe that an applicant or a third-country national or a stateless person who is subject to a transfer procedure may abscond;

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Where no Member State responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this Regulation, the ~~first~~ Member State in which the applica~~tion for international protection was lodged~~nt is present shall be responsible for examining it.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3

Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set out in Chapter III ~~or to the first Member State with which the application was lodged~~, the determining Member State shall become the Member State responsible.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3

3. Before applying the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall: (a) examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; and (b) examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: (i) the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or (ii) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4

4. Where the Member State considers an application inadmissible or examines an application in accelerated procedure pursuant to paragraph 3, that Member State shall be considered the Member State responsible.deleted

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5

5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States.deleted

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection has entered irregularly into the territory of the Member States, the application shall be made in the Member State of that first entry. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection is legally present in a Member State, the application shall be made in that Member State.deleted

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. The applicant shall submit as soon as possible ~~and at the latest during the interview pursuant to Article 7, all th~~, all the available elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1

1. If an applicant does not comply with the obligation set out in Article 4(1), the Member State responsible in accordance with this Regulation shall examine the application in an accelerated procedure, in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3

3. The applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care, during the procedures under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present.deleted

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4

4. The competent authorities shall take into account elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible only insofar as these were submitted within the deadline set out in Article 4(2).deleted

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. As soon as an application for international protection is ~~lodg~~registered within the meaning of Article 2~~1(2)~~7 [Proposal for a regulation establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU] in a Member State, its competent authorities shall inform the applicant of the application of this Regulation and of the obligations set out in Article 4 as well as the consequences of non-compliance set out in Article 5 , and in particular :

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) that the right to apply for international protection does not encompass any choice of the applicant which Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection;deleted

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Jean LAMBERT, Ska KELLER, Judith SARGENTINI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) of the objectives of this Regulation and the consequences of making another application in a different Member State as well as the consequences of leaving the Member State where he or she is obliged to be present during the phases in which the Member State responsible under this Regulation is being determined and the application for international protection is being examined , in particular that the applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU in any Member State other than the one where he or she is required to be present, with the exception of emergency health care ;

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

(ca) of the possibility under Article 36(4) to express a maximum of three preferences for the determining Member State responsible;

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)

(cb) of the provisions relating to family reunification and of the provisions relating to the possibility to reunite with family members, relatives or sponsors pursuant to Articles 10-13 and 18ANEW of this Regulation;

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) of the purpose of the personal interview pursuant to Article 7 a~~nd the obligation of submitting and substantiating information regarding the presence of family members, relatives or any other family relations~~ s well as the type of information and evidence that the applicant will have to submit for the purpose of determining the Member States responsible, including the means by which the applicant can submit such information;

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) of the possibility to challenge a transfer decision within 7 days after notification and of the fact that this challenge shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upapplicant's right to an effective remedy, in the form of an appeal or a review, in fact and in law, against a transfer decision before a court or tribunal pursuant to Article 28, including in situations where no transfer decision is taken and of the applicable procedure to challenge a transfer decision ;

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)

(ia) in the case of unaccompanied minors, of the role and responsibilities of the guardian and of the procedure to file complaints against a guardian in confidence and safety and in full respect of children's right to be heard in this respect;

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

(ib) of the right to request free legal assistance and representation at all stages of the procedure;

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided in writing in a language that the applicant understands ~~or is reasonably supposed to understand~~. Children shall be provided information in a child- friendly manner and in a language they understand by appropriately trained staff. Member States shall use the common ~~leaflet~~information material drawn up pursuant to paragraph 3 for that purpose.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3

3. The ~~Commission shall, by means of implementing acts,~~European Union Agency for Asylum shall draw up a common ~~leaflet~~information material, as well as a specific ~~leaflet~~child-friendly information material for unaccompanied minors, containing at least the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. This common ~~leaflet~~information material shall also include information regarding the application of Regulation (EU) [Proposal for a Regulation establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU] and of Regulation (EU) [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation No 603/2013] and, in particular, the purpose for which the data of an applicant may be processed within Eurodac. The common ~~leaflet~~information material shall be established in such a manner as to enable Member States to complete it with additional Member State- specific information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2) of this Regulation.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 a (new)

Article 6 a Right to free legal assistance and representation 1. Without prejudice to the applicant's right to choose his or her own legal representative at his or her own cost, Member States shall provide free legal assistance and representation on matters relating to the application of this Regulation at all stages of the procedure. 2. The free legal assistance and representation shall, at least, include: (a) the provision of information on the procedure in the light of the applicant's individual circumstances; (b) assistance in the preparation of the personal interview and supporting documents and evidence to be provided as part of the interview, including participation in the personal interview as necessary; (c) explanation of the reasons for and consequences of a transfer decision as well as information as to how to challenge that decision or how to access remedies in situations where no transfer decision is taken pursuant to Article 28.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1

1. In order to facilitate the process of determining the Member State responsible, the determining Member State shall conduct a personal interview with the applicant, unless the ~~applicant has absconded or the~~ information provided by the applicant pursuant to Article 4(2) is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible and the applicant does not request to be heard. The interview shall also allow the proper understanding of the information supplied to the applicant in accordance with Article 6.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4

4. The personal interview shall take place under conditions which ensure appropriate confidentiality. It shall be conducted by a qualified person under national law. Children shall be interviewed in a child-friendly manner by appropriately trained and qualified person under national law and in the presence of the guardian and legal representative.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 5

5. The Member State conducting the 5. personal interview shall make a written summary thereof which shall contain at least the main information supplied by the applicant at the interview. Th~~is summary may either take the form of a report or a standard form~~e information included in the summary shall be verified by the applicant, where appropriate with the assistance of an interpreter, and, where relevant, by the guardian and/or legal representative during the interview. This summary shall take the form of a report. The Member State shall ensure that the applicant and/or the legal advisor or other counsellor who is representing the applicant have timely access to the summary.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Each Member State where an unaccompanied minor is ~~obliged to be~~ present shall ensure that a ~~representative~~guardian represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the relevant procedures provided for in this Regulation. The ~~representative~~guardian shall have the independence, qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the ~~minor~~child are taken into consideration during the procedures carried out under this Regulation. Such ~~representative~~guardian shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the applicant’s file including the specific ~~leaflet~~information material for unaccompanied minors. Guardians shall receive regular training to undertake their tasks.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4

~~4. Before transferring an 4. unaccompanied minor to~~Any decision on the determination of the Member State responsible or, where applicable, to the Member State of allocation, the transferring Member State shall make sure that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor shall be preceded by an assessment of his/her shall be preceded by an assessment of the minor’s best interests. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3. The assessment shall be done swiftly by staff with the qualifications and expertise in child rights to ensure that the best interests of the ~~minor are taken into consideration~~child are taken into consideration, it shall involve at least the guardian and legal advisor or counsellor and the child's right to be heard must be guaranteed. The transferring Member States shall obtain individual guarantees that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph new5 – subparagraph 1

For the purpose of applying Article 10 and 19, the Member State where the unaccompanied minor ~~lodg~~registered an application for international protection shall, as soon as possible, take appropriate action to identify the family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor on the territory of Member States, whilst protecting the best interests of the child.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1

1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied ~~only once,~~ in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2

2. The Member State responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in this Chapter shall be determined on the basis of the situation obtaining when the applicant ~~first lodg~~registered his or her application for international protection with a Member State within the meaning of Article 27 [Proposal for a regulation establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU].

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5

5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor ~~first has lodg~~has registered his or her application for international protection and is present, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the ~~minor~~child. A multidisciplinary best interests assessment shall be carried out in accordance with Article 8 in the Member State where the minor is present and shall determine whether the Member State responsible in line with an assessment of the child's best interests is the Member State where the minor has made an application, the Member State where the minor is present or another Member State based on Article 14A NEW.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – title

Family members ~~who are beneficiaries of international protection~~

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1

Where the applicant has a family member, regardless of whether the family was previously formed in the country of origin, who ~~has been allowed to reside as a beneficiary of international protection~~is legally residing in a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 a (new)

Article 14 a Meaningful links with a Member State 1. Where the applicant has meaningful links with a Member State, including language skills, education, professional skills or cultural ties which would facilitate his or her integration, that Member State will be responsible for examining the application for international protection.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1

Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 a (new)

Article 18 a Private Sponsorship 1. Where an applicant is sponsored by a person legally residing in one of the Member States, the Member State of residence of the sponsor will be the responsible Member State, provided that the sponsor is able to take care of the dependent person and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing. 2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 57 concerning the elements to be taken into account in order to determine the criteria for assessing the capacity of the sponsor concerned to take care of the dependent person. 3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information between Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 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.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3

3. In a situation referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, the Member State responsible shall examine or complete the examination of the application for international protection in an accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 31 paragraph 8 of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 4

4. In a situation referred to in point (c) of paragraph 1, the Member State responsible shall treat any further representations or a new application by the applicant as subsequent application in accordance with Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 5

5. In a situation referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1, the decision taken by the responsible authority of the Member State responsible to reject the application shall ~~no longer~~ be subject to a remedy within the framework of Chapter V of Directive 2013/32/EU.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1

1. The process of determining the Member State responsible shall start as soon as an application for international protection is ~~first lodg~~registered with a Member State , provided that the Member State of first application is not already the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3~~(4) or~~ (5) .

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2

2. An application for international protection shall be deemed to have been lodged once a form submitted by the applicant or a report prepared by the authorities has reached the competent authorities of the Member State concerned. Where an application is not made in writing, the time elapsing between the statement of intention and the preparation of a report should be as short as possible.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

Where an application for international protection is ~~lodg~~registered with the competent authorities of a Member State by an applicant who is on the territory of another Member State, the determination of the Member State responsible shall be made by the Member State in whose territory the applicant is present. The latter Member State shall be informed without delay by the Member State which received the application and shall then, for the purposes of this Regulation, be regarded as the Member State with which the application for international protection was ~~lodg~~registered.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 5

5. An applicant who is present in another Member State without a residence document or who there ~~lodge~~registers an application for international protection after withdrawing his or her first application made in a different Member State during the process of determining the Member State responsible shall be taken back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, by the Member State with which that application for international protection was first ~~lodg~~registered.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2

2. Upon entry of the information pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44 shall register each application under a unique application number, create an electronic file for each application and communicate the unique application number to the Member State of application. The personal data contained in the unique application number as well as the electronic file shall only be used for the purposes of this Regulation and of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013].

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(a a) the total number of successful applications in the Union;

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)

(a b) the actual number of successful applications lodged in each Member State;

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1

1. Where the requested Member State accepts to take charge of an applicant , the requesting Member State shall notify the applicant in writing with~~out del~~in 5 days of the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible and, where applicable, of not examining his or her application for international protection.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall provide for a period of 7not less than 15 days after the notification of a transfer decision within which the person concerned may exercise his or her right to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph new4

new4. The scope of the effective remedy laid down in paragraph 1 shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 5

5. Where no transfer decision referred to in paragraph 1 is taken, Member States shall provide for an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, where the applicant claims that a family member or, in the case of unaccompanied minors, a relative is legally present in a Member State other than the one which is examining his or her application for international protection, and considers therefore that other Member State as Member State responsible for examining the application. The person concerned may exercise his or her right to such an effective remedy as of the day after the deadline for notifying the transfer decision in accordance with Article 27(1) and within a period of at least 15 days from the notification of the transfer decision. For the purpose of exercising the right to an effective remedy in accordance with this paragraph, Member States shall notify the applicant in writing that a transfer decision has not been taken within the deadline for the notification of the transfer decision in accordance with Article 27(1).

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph new6

new6. Member States shall ensure that the person concerned has access to free legal assistance and, where necessary, to linguistic assistance, in line with Article 6ANEW.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1

Member States shall ensure that legal assistance is granted on request free of charge where the person concerned cannot afford the costs involved. Member States may provide that, as regards fees and other costs, the treatment of applicants shall not be more favourable than the treatment generally accorded to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2

Without arbitrarily restricting access to legal assistance, Member States may provide that free legal assistance and representation not be granted where the appeal or review is considered by the competent authority or a court or tribunal to have no tangible prospect of success.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

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, based on an individual assessment of the applicant's circumstances carried out by an independent judge.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notification shall not exceed ~~two~~one weeks from the lodging of the application. The Member State carrying out the procedure in accordance with this Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply on a take charge request . Such reply shall be given within one week of receipt of the take charge request. Failure to reply within the one-week period shall be tantamount to accepting the take charge request and shall entail the obligation to take the person in charge , including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

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

Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the transfer of that person from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within ~~four~~one weeks from the final transfer decision .

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

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~~one weeks referred to in the third subparagraph, the person shall no longer be detained. Articles 24, 26 and 30 shall continue to apply accordingly.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. For the purpose of the implementation of this Regulation, Member States shall not hold children in detention.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2

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 1580% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Judith SARGENTINI, Jean LAMBERT

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Paragraph 1 does not apply to applicants falling under the cases referred to in Articles 10-14ANEW and 18ANEW.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 3

~~3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation.~~deleted

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 4

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 three Member States of possible allocation and promptly communicate this information to the applicant, who will be entitled to choose one responsible Member State among the three possible options as indicated by the automated system. The applicant shall have the possibility to express his or her preference not later than three working days after the notification of this information. Shall the applicant fail to communicate his or her preference within three working days from the notification of the possible Member States of allocation, the automated system shall indicate the final responsible Member State 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).

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

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

Jean LAMBERT

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph c

(c) transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, at the latest within ~~four~~two weeks from the final transfer decision.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

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~~24 hours of receipt of the fingerprints.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 3

3. Where the outcome of the security verification confirms that the applicant ~~may~~is 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.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 4

4. The information exchanged shall only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1 and shall not be further processed. As soon as the accelerated procedure referred to in paragraph 3 is completed, any personal data processed and exchanged pursuant to this Article shall be destroyed.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2

2. Family members and relatives to whom the procedure for allocation applies shall be allocated to the same Member State.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1

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 1580 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1).

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 a (new)

Article 43 a Sanctions for failure to comply with corrective allocation mechanism If a Member State does not fulfil its obligations under Chapter VII it shall not be permitted to use EU funds to fund returns of third-country nationals to third countries and shall report annually on its use of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Data subjects shall be notified without undue delay when a security incident including unlawful or unauthorised access or disclosure, alteration or loss of personal data processed is likely to result in a high risk to their rights and freedoms.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3

3. The processing of personal data by the European Union Agency for Asylum shall be subject to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the provisions on data protection laid down in [Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010], in particular as regards the monitoring of the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the provisions on data protection laid down in [Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010].

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE