53 Amendments of Sylvie GUILLAUME related to 2019/2206(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
— having regard to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 18, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
— having regard to Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 813 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR),
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12
Citation 12
— having regard to the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights related to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, and in particular Sharifi v. Austria of 5 December 2013 (Chamber judgment), Mohammadi v. Austria of 3 July 2014 (Chamber judgment), Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece of 21 October 2014 (Chamber judgment), and Tarakhel v. Switzerland of 4 November 2014 (Grand Chamber judgment), and ECtHR - M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece [GC]; Application No. 30696/09, Judgement of 21 November 2011, related to Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (Dublin II)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 27 a (new)
Citation 27 a (new)
— having regard to the European Parliament Resolution of 12 April 2016 on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to Migration (2015/2095(INI));
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 27 b (new)
Citation 27 b (new)
— having regard to the ECJ judgement of the 2 April 2020 on the joined cases C-715/17, C-718/17 and C- 719/17 Commission v Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas 2.5 million people applied for asylum in the European Union in the period 2015-2016, a fourfold increase compared to 2012-2013714,200 asylum applications were lodged in the EU in 2019;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas in the case of most asylum applications, the set of hierarchical criteria and the deadlines laid down as part of Dublin procedures are not met and transfers are not carried out;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas studies on the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation highlight systematic disregard towards family provisions and incorrect application of the principle of the best interest of the child, which have resulted in unnecessary and unreasonable transfer procedures;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the provisions on dependent persons (article 16) and the discretionary clauses (article 17) could be widely used to support family unity;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)
Recital C d (new)
Cd. whereas the preventive action provision of the Dublin III Regulation (Article 33) has never been used;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C e (new)
Recital C e (new)
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C f (new)
Recital C f (new)
Cf. whereas implementation of the Dublin III Regulation does not effectively address secondary movements which are largely due to asylum seekers' social- connections with specific countries, protection-based concerns, health reasons and systemic deficiencies in the asylum systems where application are made;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C g (new)
Recital C g (new)
Cg. whereas Article 28 of the Dublin Regulation allows detention as an exceptional measure "to secure transfer procedures", where there is "significant risk of absconding" of the applicant; whereas this definition remains unclear and the interpretation varies from a Member State to another;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C h (new)
Recital C h (new)
Ch. whereas the use of detention and coercive transfers raises concerns with respect to asylum seekers' right to liberty, dignity and physical integrity;
Amendment 62 #
Da. whereas some of the flaws are inherent in the design of the Regulation and cannot be solved through better implementation alone;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Incorporating the principle of solidarity into the management of asylum seekersDublin Regulation
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
(1) Points out that the Dublin Regulation, as designed and implemented, has failed to guarantee a fair distribution of responsibility between Member States and swift access to international protection;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that the Dublin System, and in particular the first country of irregular entry criterion places a significant burden on a minority of Member states;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Urges the EU to establish an automatic, permanent and mandatory relocation mechanism ensuring the full respect of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility enshrined in art.80 of TFEU; including for those rescued at sea;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that ad hoc agreements are no substitute for a harmonised and sustainable policy at EU levelCommon European and Asylum System; deplores the fact that efforts to overhaul the Dublin III Regulation have been blocked in the Council;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the crisis management tool provided for in Article 33 did not provide effective support to the Member States, nor did it offer a response to the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis; considers that a solidarity-based crisis management mechanism, endowed with a financial instrument managed by the Commission,mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management as set out in Article 33 has not been applied to date, considers that a solidarity-based mechanism in the EU should be established to ensure continuity of the right of asylum in the EU uander the best possible conditions not to hinder arrivals and deflect responsibility; emphasizes that the protection of fundamental rights of asylum applicants should always remain at the centre of this mechanism; also notes that the provisions set out in the Temporary Protection Directive has yet to be invoked;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers that such a mechanism should allow for the participation of civil society organization providing professional assistance to people in need of international protection during the assessment of their asylum application, particularly of legal nature;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Member States to makexpand the use of the discretionary clause in Article 17 when exceptional, to address challenging situations and humanitarian circumstances so warrant,, as for example to relocate and provide decent reception conditions to asylum seekers currently living in the Greek hotspots in an atmosphere of extreme tension and to provide decent receptioninhumane, degrading, unsanitary and unsafe conditions;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Takes the view that provisions on family unity, which are the first in the hierarchy of criteria, should be efficiently implemented, and that provisions on dependent persons (article 16) and the discretionary clauses (article 17) should be used more widely to support family unity;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. In the absence of a permanent solidarity mechanism, supports the expanded use of discretionary clauses of Article 17 as a solidarity tool for responsibility sharing in particular in situations of large number of spontaneous arrivals and in the specific context of sea arrivals and disembarkation procedures;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights the significant operational backing for Dublin proceduresand technical support provided by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in the hotspotto Member States; calls on the Commission and the Member States to facilitate the work of EASO staff by allowing interviews in a language other than that of the country in which they are conductedand the Commission to increase assistance to Member States, especially those at the border of the EU; calls for the establishment of a European Asylum Agency, with sufficient financial and human resources, supporting Member States with Dublin procedures;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission to monitor that interviews are conducted in the language of the asylum seeker or in a language that the applicant is reasonably supposed to understand;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. PDeplores that the rights of asylum seekers, including that to legal assistance, are often neglected when implementing the Dublin III Regulation, points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implementEU asylum policies and of the implementation process of the Dublin III Regulation, including the protection of childrenminors, victims of trafficking, victims of torture, and the most vulnerable;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls that asylum seekers have the right to be fully informed on the procedures; regrets that the level of information provided to asylum seekers differs consistently from one Member state to another; urges the Member states to guarantee that minors have tailored, child-friendly information and specific support; stresses that providing legal assistance and interpretation are key to ensure applicants' right to information;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Points out that transfers of asylum seekers, and in particular vulnerable people, minors and families can result in violations of their human rights; urges Member states to properly assess the risks to which applicants would be exposed in the Member States of destination; stresses in particular that transfers must be carried out in a way that under no circumstances exposes individuals to a risk of refoulement, irrespective of whether the asylum system of return is affected by systemic deficiencies;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Deplores that Member states resort too often to the detention of applicants waiting to be transferred; urges Member states to make concrete efforts to find valid alternatives to detention;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion and toenable a better use of the family provisions, including by harmoniseing the standards of proof required; callacross Member states oin the Member States and the Commission to protect the best interests of children and to clarify the criteria for keeping children in detentiondirection of less stringent and more achievable standards; calls the Commission and the Member states to speed up family reunification procedures including through an immediate transfer to a country in which the applicant has family;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Regrets that Member states do not proactively contribute to the identification and verification of the family links; deplores that the burden of proof is almost entirely left to the applicants;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Points out that the narrow definition of family contributes to the lack of compliance with the hierarchy of criteria and the dysfunctionality of the system;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure an adequate verification of the best interest of the child, avoiding that the complexity of the procedures results in the failure to implement this principle, in particular for the unaccompanied minors of age between 16 and 18;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8d. Regrets that Member states apply different interpretation of the best interest of the child; calls therefore the Commission to clarify the definition in line with EU legislation and to identify which family reunification possibilities, security and safety considerations, background information should be taken into consideration;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 e (new)
Paragraph 8 e (new)
8e. Urges the Member States and the Commission to clarify that detention is never in the best interest of the child and that a minor should never be detained because of the migratory status of their family; calls to expand the sources used for the monitoring and identification of unlawful practices to include information provided by international and non- governmental organizations where it is reliable, up-to-date and specific;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 f (new)
Paragraph 8 f (new)
8f. Deplores that insufficient identification mechanisms and erroneous methods of age assessment often further exacerbate the situation of minors, causing delays or affecting negatively the outcome of the Dublin procedure; calls for an harmonized age assessment that do not endanger minors' rights, health and psychological well-being;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, generating considerable human, material and financial costs; deplores, however, the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out, a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between Member States; regards efforts to combat secencourages Member states to apply the discretiondary movements as essential in order to reduce the number of transfer requests; proposes thatclause more swiftly in cases where it becomes evident that transfers cannot be carried out, or where the coinditions which trigger transfer procedures be clarified and harmonisedvidual situation of the applicant requires so;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that in some cases the rules on transfer of responsibility under Dublin III undermine the efficiency of asylum procedures and the carrying-out of transfers and, according to the evidence, that in many cases asylum seekers remain outside of the system due to disproportionate use of the criterion of the first countribute to the increase in the number of secondary movements by encouraging asylum-seekers to remain outside the systemy of irregular entry and the insufficient consideration of the meaningful links and the particular needs of the applicants; calls on the Commission to revise the rules, in order to give Member States sufficient time to carry out transfers and do away with transfer of responsibility in cases where anincrease trust between Member States and between them and the asylum seeker absconds;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection with Dublin procedures, in particular in the hotspots, would simplify the process of obtaining asylum would enhance rights-compliant procedures, simplify Dublin procedures and improve decision- making; calls on the Member States to improve the information made available to asylum seekers on the complex Dublin procedures, to ensure that it is clear and accessible to everyone;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Calls on the Member States to increase the resources necessary to make Dublin III operational, particularly the number of asylum officers; calls on the European Commission to increase the funds available for the provision of legal assistance, especially funding for civil society professionals offering legal assistance to people in need of international protection during the Dublin procedure;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4
Subheading 4
A singlerights-centred asylum application in the EU
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that the principle of a single asylum application in the EU is consistently flouted, a state of affairs at odds with the very purpose of the Dublin III Regulation; considernotes that the competent national authorities should share their relevant information on a European database such as Eurodac, in order to speed up procedures and prevent multiple asylum applications, while protecting personal datare are multiple reasons for submission of additional asylum applications;
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that the rate of protection for asylum seekers varies greatly between Member States for certain nationalities; considers that a common list of safe countries and a shared country-risk analysis, or at least greater convergence, would reduce these disparities, and thus also the number of secondary movements; stresses that the return of persons not eligible for asylum is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of the Dublin III Regulation and this can contribute to onward movement; considers that accounting for individual needs of the applicant in the Dublin procedures would reduce secondary movements; calls for the inclusion of a relocation criteria considering the "genuine links" with a particular Member state as an efficient approach to reduce secondary movements;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Proposes that EASO be given an expanded role in analysing the flows of and pathways taken by asylum seekers, in order to better anticipate and understand pressures on asylum systemssupporting Member states in the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation;
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Urges the Commission and the Council to work towards convergence in the bilateral agreements concluded between Member States and with thirdimplementation of the Dublin III Regulation by taking stock of the elements countries, in order to optimise implementation of the Dublin III Regubuting to greater efficiency, and compliance with human rights legislation;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Urges the Council to find a sustainable solution and take the necessary steps to adopt a position on the Dublin Recast Regulation by qualified majority;
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Proposes that a fairer system of allocation be a priority for any reform of the Dublin system while keeping the protection of fundamental rights of applicants at the centre of the functioning of the solidarity mechanism;