24 Amendments of Ernst STRASSER related to 2009/0165(COD)
Amendment 85 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point p a (new)
Article 2 – point p a (new)
(pa) "subsequent application" means a further application after a final decision;
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Applicants for international protection shall be given the opportunity to consult in an effective manner a legal adviser or other counsellor, admitted or permitted as such under national law, on matters relating to their applications for international protection, at all stages of thethroughout procedure,s including following a negative decision accordance with Chapter III and V.
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 163 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 174 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 215 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 27 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Member States may extend that time limit for a period not exceeding a further 6 months in individual cases involving complex issues of fact and law, including cases of applicants with special needs, and in the case of arrivals involving a large number of third-country nationals or stateless persons lodging applications for international protection.
Amendment 217 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 27 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Member States may prioritise or accelerate an examination of an application for international protection in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II:
Amendment 222 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point a a (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point a a (new)
(aa) the applicant clearly does not qualify as a refugee or for refugee status in a Member State under Directive […./../EC] [the Qualification Directive]; or
Amendment 224 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point b
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point b
(b) the applicant is from a safe country of origin within the meaning of this Directive, or from a country which is not a Member State but is considered to be a safe third country for the applicant, or
Amendment 225 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point c a (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point c a (new)
(ca) the applicant has filed another application for asylum stating other personal data with a different content; or
Amendment 226 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point d a (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point d a (new)
(da) the applicant has made clearly inconsistent, contradictory, improbable, insufficient or false representations which make his/her claim clearly unconvincing in relation to his/her having been the object of persecution referred to in Directive […./../EC] [the Qualification Directive]; or
Amendment 227 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point d b (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point d b (new)
(db) the applicant has submitted a subsequent application which clearly does not raise any relevant new elements with respect to his/her particular circumstances or to the situation in his/her country of origin; or
Amendment 228 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point d c (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point d c (new)
(dc) the applicant has failed without reasonable cause to make his/her application earlier, having had opportunity to do so; or
Amendment 230 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point f a (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point f a (new)
(fa) the applicant has failed without good reason to comply with his/her obligations to cooperate in the examination of the facts of his/her case and the establishment of his/her identity referred to in Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive […/../EC] [the Qualification Directive] or in Article 12(1) and (2)(a), (b) and (c) and Article 24(1) of this Directive; or
Amendment 231 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point f b (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point f b (new)
(fb) the applicant entered the territory of the Member State unlawfully or prolonged his/her stay unlawfully and, without good reason, has either not presented himself/herself to the authorities and/or filed an application for asylum as soon as possible, given the circumstances of his/her entry; or
Amendment 232 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point f c (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – point f c (new)
(fc) the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security and public order under national law.
Amendment 233 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 7
Article 27 – paragraph 7
7. In cases of unfounded applications, as referred to in Article 28, in which any of the circumstances listed in paragraph 6 apply, Member States may reject an application as manifestly unfounded following an adequate and complete examination.
Amendment 238 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) the applicant has lodged an identical subsequent application after a final decisionin accordance with Article2(pa);
Amendment 256 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
In the case of subsequent applications, Member States may derogate from their obligations under Articles 7, 9, 11 and 18, as they were already fulfilled within the former procedure.
Amendment 258 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 35 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 35 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
8. If, following a final decision to consider a subsequent application inadmissible pursuant to Article 29 (2) (d) or a final decision to reject a subsequent application as unfounded, the person concerned lodges a new application for international protection in the same Member State before a return decision has been enforced, that Member State may:
Amendment 274 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 41 – paragraph 3
Article 41 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that the effective remedy referred to in paragraph 1 provides for a full examination of both facts and points of law, including an ex nunc examination of the international protection needs pursuant to Directive […./../EC] [the Qualification Directive], at least in appeal procedures before a court or tribunal of first instance.
Amendment 275 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 41 – paragraph 5
Article 41 – paragraph 5
5. Without prejudice to paragraph 6 and 7, the remedy provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article shall have the effect of allowing applicants to remain in the Member State concerned pending its outcome.
Amendment 278 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 41 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
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.
Amendment 280 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 41 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 41 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. In the case of an application which is inadmissible pursuant to Article 29(2)(d) and where a valid expulsion order is in force, Member States may not allow the applicant to remain in their territory pending the outcome of the remedy.