25 Amendments of Birgit SIPPEL related to 2016/0133(COD)
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, 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 it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the childWhen the applicant is a minor who is accompanied by a parent, an adult sibling or another adult responsible for the minor, the legal presence of another parent or adult responsible for him or her in a Member State should also become a binding responsibility criterion. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure thatobtain individualised guarantees from thate Member State where the minor will be transferred 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 representativesguardian tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision to transferon responsibility in accordance with this Regulation concerning an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an multidisciplinary assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise. which shall involve, at a minimum, his or her guardian and legal advisor or counsellor
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Assuming responsibility by a Member State for examining an application lodged with it in cases when such examination is not its responsibility under the 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 Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria 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 Regulation.
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22 a (new)
Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) In order to increase applicants' understanding of the functioning of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) it is necessary to significantly improve the provision of information. Investing in the early provision of accessible information to applicants will greatly increase their possibilities to understand, accept and follow the procedures of this Regulation. In order to reduce the administrative requirements and make effective use of common resources the European Union Asylum Agency should develop suitable information material, in close cooperation with the national authorities. The Agency should make full use of modern information technologies when developing that material. In order to properly assist asylum seekers the Agency should also develop audio-visual information material that can be used as a complement to written information materials. The Agency should be responsible for maintaining a dedicated website with information on the functioning of the CEAS for applicants and potential applicants designed to counter the often incorrect information provided to them by smugglers. The information material developed by the Agency should be translated and made available in all of the major languages spoken by asylum seekers arriving in Europe.
Amendment 191 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
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.
Amendment 202 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) The detention of applicants should be applied in accordance with the underlying principle that a person should not be held in detention for the sole reason that he or she is seeking international protection. Detention should be limited to exceptional cases and for as short a period as possible and subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality. Minors shall never be detained. In particular, the detention of applicants must be in accordance with Article 31 of the Geneva Convention and which shall fully respect the person's fundamental rights. The procedures provided for under this Regulation in respect of a detained person should be applied as a matter of priority, within the shortest possible deadlines. As regards the general guarantees governing detention, as well as detention conditions, where appropriate, Member States should apply the provisions of Directive 2013/33/EU also to persons detained on the basis of this Regulation.
Amendment 230 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
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 whichorder to implement the principles of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility on asylum among Member States enshrined in Article 80 TFEU. The application of the allocation mechanism should be permanent and automatic, whenever a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figurcould not be identified in the reference keytermined according to the criteria set out in Chapter III and IV of this Regulation. 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 which the Member State is responsible, for the purposes of this calculation.
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33 a (new)
Recital 33 a (new)
(33a) Member State should ensure that procedures are efficient and allow applicants for international protection to be promptly relocated to other Member States. With a view to avoid costly and time-consuming secondary transfers and in order to provide an efficient access to family unity for applicants whilst not unduly overburdening frontline Member States a light family reunification procedure should be envisaged which would allow for the transfer of applicants that are likely to meet the relevant criteria to allow them to be reunited with family members in a particular Member State.
Amendment 283 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52
Recital 52
(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.
Amendment 305 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 2
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 2
- the minor childrensons and daughters 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,
Amendment 327 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5 a (new)
- the grandparents of the applicant or beneficiary of international protection;
Amendment 328 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – indent 5 b (new)
- the grandchildren of the applicant;
Amendment 330 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) ‘relative’ means the applicant’s adult aunt or uncle or grandparentcousin who is present in the territory of a Member State, regardless of whether the applicant was born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law;
Amendment 358 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
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 itshall be determined by the allocation mechanism pursuant to Chapter VII.
Amendment 364 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
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, the Member State responsible shall be determined by the allocation mechanism pursuant to Chapter VII.
Amendment 371 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Amendment 453 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) of the right to request free legal assistance and representation at all stages of the procedure.
Amendment 475 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
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. The interview shall also allow the proper understanding of the information supplied to the applicant in accordance with Article 6.
Amendment 482 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The personal interview shall be conducted in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand and in which he or she is able to communicate. When the applicant is a minor, the personal interview shall be conducted in a child-friendly manner and with the presence of the guardian and, where applicable, the legal advisor or counsellor. Where necessary, Member States shall have recourse to an qualified interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person conducting the personal interview.
Amendment 571 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) responsibility for examining the applications for international protection of all the family members and/or minor unmarried siblings shall lie with the Member State which the criteria indicate is responsible for taking charge of the largest number of them;
Amendment 697 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1
Article 25 – paragraph 1
1. The requested Member State shall make the necessary checks, and shall give a decision on the request to take charge of an applicant within one monthtwo weeks of receipt of the request.
Amendment 731 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph new4
Article 28 – paragraph new4
Amendment 751 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2
Article 29 – paragraph 2
2. When there is a significant risk of absconding,In exceptional cases Member States may detain thea person concerned in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with this Regulation, on the basis of an individual assessment andonly where the applicant has been intercepted after having tried to abscond or where it appears evident on the basis of his or her concrete behavior that he or she intends to abscond, and in any case only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively. Minors shall never be detained.
Amendment 756 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Detention shall be for as short a period as possible and shall be for no longer than the time reasonably necessary to fulfil the required administrative procedures with due diligence until the transfer under this Regulation is carried out, and in any case it shall not exceed 3 months.
Amendment 807 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 5
Article 34 – paragraph 5
5. The automated system shall continuously monitor whether any of the Member States is above the threthe number of applications for which a Member State is responsible, to which the number of people effectively resettled to that Member State should referred to in paragraph 2, and if so, notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold. be added, and check whether for any of the Member States this number is higher than the respective reference number. If so, the automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold. No further allocation should be made towards these Member States until the number of applications for which they are responsible (including resettled persons) is below their reference number.
Amendment 870 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 c (new)
Article 36 c (new)
Article 36 c Determination of the Member State of allocation 1. On the basis of the reference key referred to in Article 35, the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate the six Member States with the lowest number of applicants relative to their share of the fair distribution. 2. The determining Member State shall consult the automated system and communicate the short list of six Member States to the applicant. The applicant shall be enabled to choose among the six Member States included in the list, within 7 days. For this purpose, the applicant shall receive information on the possible Member States of allocation. The determining Member State shall communicate immediately the choice to the automated system and the Member State of allocation, and add the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2). 3. When Article 24a applies, the applicant will not be able to make the choice provided by paragraph 2, and the Member State responsible will be determined randomly by the automated system. The automated system shall communicate that information to the determining 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). 4. In cases of allocation of a minor, under the conditions set by Article 10, the choice provided by paragraph 2 shall always be granted and shall be accompanied by a multidisciplinary assessment of the best interests of the minor.