BETA

50 Amendments of Mariya GABRIEL related to 2016/0133(COD)

Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Petri SARVAMAA, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Mariya GABRIEL, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

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

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Mariya GABRIEL, Emil RADEV

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

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

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

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

Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Petri SARVAMAA, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Mariya GABRIEL, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ

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 covered.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

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

Mariya GABRIEL, Emil RADEV

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32

(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds ~~150~~75% 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

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35

(35) AIn cases where there is an immediate threat to national security, 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~~such opt- outs from the corrective allocation mechanism.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Mariya GABRIEL, Emil RADEV, Artis PABRIKS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42

(42) A network of competent Member State authorities should be set up and facilitated by the European Union Agency for Asylum to enhance practical cooperation and information sharing on all matters related to the application of this Regulation, including the development of practical tools and guidance. That network should promote the exchange of best practices concerning the examination of an asylum application by the competent authorities of Member States under this Regulation and initiate the training of the employees of those authorities.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Mariya GABRIEL, Emil RADEV

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44 a (new)

(44a) The operation of the Entry/Exit System (EES), as established by Regulation (EU) ..../... of the European Parliament and of the Council1a , should facilitate the application of this Regulation. _________________ 1a Regulation (EU) ..../... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States of the European Union and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 and Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Anders VISTISEN, Mariya GABRIEL, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ

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

- the sibling or siblings of the applicant, where the proof of the relationship is provided;

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

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 application for international protection was lodged shall be responsible for examining it.deleted

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Petri SARVAMAA, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Mariya GABRIEL, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Any Member State shall retain the right to send an applicant to a safe third country, subject to the rules and safeguards laid down in Directive 2013/32/EU.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

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

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

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

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

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

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

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~~a Member States, the application shall be made in theat Member State ~~of that first entry~~. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection is already legally present in a Member State, the application shall be made in that Member State.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

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 the elements and information re~~levant for determining~~quired by 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 2

2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State. The competent authorities of that Member State shall inform the European Union Agency for Asylum thereof in a timely manner and shall introduce relevant information into the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) where the applicant has left the territory of that Member State.

2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

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~~entered the Union by land, sea or air, the Member State of the applicant's first application for international protection shall be responsible for examining the application ~~for international protection~~.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Anders VISTISEN, Mariya GABRIEL, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ

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

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, an applicant whose application is under examination and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document;deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, a third- country national or a stateless person who has withdrawn the application under examination and made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document;deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, a third- country national or a stateless person whose application has been rejected and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document;deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30 a beneficiary of international protection, who made an application in another Member State than the Member State responsible which granted that protection status or who is on the territory of another Member State than the Member State responsible which granted that protection without a residence document.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

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.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 a (new)

Article 20 a Cessation of responsibilities The obligations set out in Article 20 shall cease if the Member State responsible can establish that the person concerned has left its territory voluntarily for more than three months or in compliance with a return decision or removal order issued following the withdrawal or rejection of the application. An application that is lodged after the applicant has been absent for such a period or has been effectively removed shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

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 lodges 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 lodged.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 4

4. Where a hit in Eurodac indicates that the applicant has previously lodged an application for international protection before having left or having been removed from the territories of the Member States, the Member State with which the new application is lodged shall also indicate which Member State has been the Member State responsible for examining the previous application.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Mariya GABRIEL, Emil RADEV

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. The Member State with which the application is lodged shall search the EES pursuant to Article 25b of Regulation (EU) ..../... [EES Regulation, 2016/0106(COD)] with a view to facilitating the application of this Regulation.

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point f

(f) in case of the indication of a previous application for international protection by the same applicant pursuant to Article 22(4), the Member State who was responsible for that previous application;deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 6 – section 4

Procedures for take back notifications Submitting a take back notification 1. In a situation referred to in Article 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notification at the latest within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, and transfer that person to the Member State responsible . 2. A take back notification shall be made using a standard form and shall include proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from the statements of the person concerned. 3. The Member State responsible shall confirm immediately the receipt of the notification to the Member State which made the notification. 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take back notifications . Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2

2. Where the applicant or another person referred to in Article 20(1) (c), (d) or (e) is to be taken back, the Member State where the person concerned is present shall notify the person concerned in writing without undue delay the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible.deleted

2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE

Mariya GABRIEL, Emil RADEV

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 ~~150~~75% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) the size of the active population (250 % weighting);

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) the total GDP (250% weighting);

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Roberts ZĪLE, Anders VISTISEN, Mariya GABRIEL, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)

(ba) number of migrants already living in the Member State;

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

(bb) the average unemployment rate during the preceding 12 months (25% weighting)

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)

(ba) GDP growth rate during the preceding 12 months (25% weighting)

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Traian UNGUREANU, Kinga GÁL, Andrea BOCSKOR, Pál CSÁKY, Brice HORTEFEUX, Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Roberts ZĪLE, Jussi HALLA-AHO, Anders VISTISEN, Mariya GABRIEL, József NAGY, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ

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

Mariya GABRIEL, Artis PABRIKS, Emil RADEV

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – title

~~Financial solidarity~~Opt-out mechanism

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1

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

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 2

2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during th~~is twelve-month~~e opt-out 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.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Mariya GABRIEL, Artis PABRIKS, Emil RADEV

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 3

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

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Mariya GABRIEL, Emil RADEV, Artis PABRIKS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 4

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

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Mariya GABRIEL, Emil RADEV, Artis PABRIKS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 5

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

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Mariya GABRIEL, Emil RADEV

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 ~~150~~75 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1).

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Mariya GABRIEL, Emil RADEV, Artis PABRIKS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 1 a (new)

That network shall promote the exchange of best practices concerning the examination of an asylum application by the competent authorities of Member States under this Regulation and initiate the training of the employees of those authorities.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 2 a (new)

GDP growth rate effectMS28a _________________ 28aFor three Member States, participation depends on the exercise of rights as set out in the relevant Protocols and other instruments.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 2 b (new)

Unemployment rate effectMS = 1/average unemployment rate during the preceding 12 months28b _________________ 28bFor three Member States, participation depends on the exercise of rights as set out in the relevant Protocols and other instruments.

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE

Emil RADEV, Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 3

ShareMS = 250% Population effectMS + 250% GDP effectMS + 25% GDP growth rate effectMS + 25% unemployment rate effectMS

2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE