Sittings · Compare
What changed
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE procedure
2016/0223(COD)
Follow up to the European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection granted and amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents
2.3.2017
1. Rapporteur: Matjaž NEMEC (S&D / SI)
***I
2. Reference numbers: 2016/0223 (COD) / A8-0245/2017 / P9_TA(2024)0185
DRAFT REPORT
3. Date of adoption of the resolution: 10 April 2024
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
4. Legal basis: Articles 78(2)(a) and (b) and 79(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted and amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents
5. Competent Parliamentary Committee: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE)
(COM(2016)0466 – C80324/2016 – 2016/0223(COD))
6. Commission's position: accepts all amendments.
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0466),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Articles 78(2)(a) and (b) and 79(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C80324/2016),
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 14 December 2016,
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 8 February 2017,
– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A80000/2017),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Or. en
Justification
The Rapporteur prefers to lay down positive incentives for beneficiaries of international protection to remain in the Member State that grants them protection.
Amendment 2
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Or. en
Justification
Genuine solidarity involves the proper distribution of those seeking international protection across the Member States. Financial solidarity should not be a preferred form of solidarity.
Amendment 3
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Ultimately, full mutual recognition of international protection decisions taken by Member States will be necessary in order to establishment a truly uniform status of international protection in the Union. The rapporteur considers this should be based on a uniform status of asylum and of subsidiary protection valid throughout the Union; common procedures, criteria and standards concerning the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum or subsidiary protection.
Amendment 4
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Or. en
Amendment 5
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Or. en
Justification
The harmonised duration of residence permits granted to those in need of international protection should take full account of current practice across the Member States and should not be based on a “race to the bottom” principle.
Amendment 6
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Or. en
Justification
All persons in need of international protection should be entitled to the same rights across the Union.
Amendment 7
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Or. en
Justification
It is not clear that differences in transposing the existing Qualifications Directive are the cause of secondary movements.
Amendment 8
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Or. en
Justification
So long as national statuses for humanitarian protection continue to exist, it is very difficult to understand how there would not be a risk of confusion with refugee status and subsidiary protection status.
Amendment 9
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Or. en
Justification
The Rapporteur prefers to lay down positive incentives for beneficiaries of international protection to remain in the Member State that grants them protection.
Amendment 10
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Or. en
Amendment 11
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Or. en
Justification
The correct title of the Fund is the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. Furthermore, Member States should be encouraged to maximise their absorption capacity in relation to other funds which might provide financing for integration actions for persons in need of international protection.
Amendment 12
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Or. en
Justification
While the rapporteur agrees that information from the European Asylum Support Office should be used by Member States when assessing applications for international protection, the Agency should not be the sole source of information. UNHCR and other relevant actors on the ground also provide detailed information on the situation in third countries.
Amendment 13
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Or. en
Justification
Families formed after their arrival on the territory of the Member State should be included under the definition of family members. However, forced marriages - irrespective of where they take place - should be excluded.
Amendment 14
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Or. en
Justification
The Rapporteur does not believe that the concept of internal protection is sufficiently well developed, clear or safe to be applied in a completely harmonised manner.
Amendment 15
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Or. en
Justification
Article 1D of Geneva convention also applies to persons who receive protection by the UNHCR which has to be mandated by the State in order to be present on the territory of that State. Furthermore, non-State actors should not be considered as actors of protection, unless they have been mandated by the State specifically to do so, as they cannot be held accountable under international law, they could only provide protection which is temporary and limited in its effectiveness.
Amendment 16
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Or. en
Justification
Member States should be entitled to use the concept of internal protection in their overall examination of an application for international protection. However, such an alternative should not be relied upon by Member States in circumstances where the persecution or serious harm emanates from the State or agents associated with the State.
Amendment 17
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Or. en
Justification
The internal protection alternative should not be relied upon by Member States in circumstances where the persecution or serious harm emanates from the State or agents associated with the State.
Amendment 18
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Or. en
Justification
The absence of protection against persecution is also a factor to be considered in assessing the availability of protection, particularly with regard to minors.
Amendment 19
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Or. en
Justification
The sex characteristics of an applicant might also be a factor in determining whether that applicant belongs to a particular social group.
Amendment 20
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Or. en
Justification
Late disclosure is one of the four parameters referred to in the recent judgement of the CJEU in the case of A, B and C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, of 2 December 2014 but has not been mentioned in the Commission text and it should be added. For LGBTI asylum seekers, fear and stigma often lead to late disclosure of their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics. Their applications should not suffer as a sole result of such late disclosure.
Amendment 21
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
As both refugee status and subsidiary protection should, in the rapporteur’s view, give rise to the same rights in the Member State granting protection, their status should be equalised in the Regulation.
Amendment 22
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Or. en
Justification
Certain factors should be taken into account when considering whether indiscriminate violence exists. The list is not exhaustive.
Amendment 23
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Persons or groups of persons, who, for compelling reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment that adversely affect their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes and are in search and need of protection should qualify under this Regulation for international protection in the European Union.
Amendment 24
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Or. en
Justification
It is irrelevant whether the residence permit or a travel document is issued for the first time or renewed, as it should always comply with the respective Regulations.
Amendment 25
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Or. en
Justification
A systematic review of protection needs would prove highly resource-intensive for the determining authorities of the Member States. It is not at all the case that the authorities responsible for decisions on the need for international protection are the same authorities as those which issue residence permits. It is also important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary.
Amendment 26
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Or. en
Amendment 27
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
Or. en
Justification
A recital need not contain such detailed elements regarding periods of time which could be subject to revision and which are part of the enacting provisions in the articles. The recitals should rather lay down the rationale of the main provisions of the act.
Amendment 28
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Or. en
Justification
In line with the Rapporteur's approach to encouraging beneficiaries to remain and integrate in the Member State that grants international protection, prevention of secondary movement should be a welcome side product of such a policy but not the driver.
Amendment 29
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Or. en
Justification
Secondary movement of beneficiaries of international protection should be discouraged not by promoting sanctions against beneficiaries but by encouraging them to remain in the Member State which grants protection and integrate there. One such form of encouragement is to harmonise the duration of the residence permits granted to beneficiaries of international protection for a sufficiently long period of time. Such a harmonised period should take account of current practices across the Member States.
Amendment 30
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
Or. en
Justification
The notion of supporting an association that in turn supports terrorism is too vague a concept to provide legal clarity.
Amendment 31
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
The Rapporteur believes that integration is one of the key elements of enhancing the proper functioning of the Common European Asylum System. If beneficiaries are properly integrated into their host societies, incentives to engage in secondary movements should be reduced significantly.
Amendment 32
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
Or. en
Justification
It is not at all clear why persons who are in need of protection and who are granted subsidiary protection should not receive the social assistance enjoyed by other persons needing international protection. There should be no unequal treatment between persons in need of international protection. This is both legally dubious and administratively unhelpful. Once the need for protection has been established these persons all have the same social needs in the hosting Member State.
Amendment 33
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
The wording of the recital is aligned with wording proposed by the European Commission for equal treatment provisions in legal migration instruments (notably the revision of the Blue Card). The recitals finds expression in Articles 30 and 35 respectively.
Amendment 34
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
Or. en
Justification
The Rapporteur welcomes the provisions on access to integration measures but believes that such measures must always be free of charge, easily accessible to beneficiaries of international protection (i.e. not limited to one or two big cities in a Member State) and take account of any particular needs of the beneficiary in question. This is even more imperative if a Member State wishes to make participation compulsory for beneficiaries of international protection.
Amendment 35
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
Families formed after their arrival on the territory of the Member State should be included under the definition of family members. However, forced marriages - irrespective of where they take place, should be excluded.
Amendment 36
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point a
Or. en
Amendment 37
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point b
Or. en
Justification
The Rapporteur does not believe that the married or unmarried status of children should be a factor when determining the members of a family.
Amendment 38
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point c
Or. en
Justification
The Rapporteur does not believe that the married or unmarried status of children should be a factor when determining who the family members are.
Amendment 39
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point c a (new)
Or. en
Justification
This indent is taken from the definition of "family members" proposed in the new recast Dublin Regulation.
Amendment 40
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 19
Or. en
Justification
Harmonisation ofdefinitions and reference to UNCRC, Art. 3.
Amendment 41
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
In line with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is incumbent on the determining authorities to cooperate with the applicant when determining the relevant elements of the case. This is also the wording used in Article 4(1) of the existing Directive.
Amendment 42
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Amendment 43
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – point a
Or. en
Amendment 44
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – point d
Or. en
Justification
There are many reasons why an applicant might not seek international protection immediately. Whether the applicant has applied for international protection at the earliest moment possible should not determine the weight attached to an applicant’s statements
Amendment 45
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Justification
The case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union makes it clear that the applicant is not required to act discreetly, abstain from religious practice or conceal their sexual orientation to be entitled to international protection. If international protection is to be refused, then any such refusal must be fully in line with the Geneva Convention and with the case-law of the CJEU and the ECtHR.
Amendment 46
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
Or. en
Justification
Article 1D of Geneva convention also applies to persons who receive protection by the UNHCR which has to be mandated by the State in order to be present on the territory of that State. Furthermore, non-State actors should not be considered as actors of protection, unless they have been mandated by the State specifically to do so, as they cannot be held accountable under international law, they could only provide protection which is temporary and limited in its effectiveness.
Amendment 47
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Or. en
Justification
Protection for the applicant must be demonstrated in practice and in that particular case, and not merely in principle or in general terms. It should be demonstrated by the competent authority that the protection is not only temporary and limited in its effectiveness.
Amendment 48
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
The internal protection alternative should not be relied upon by Member States in circumstances where the persecution or serious harm emanates from the State or agents associated with the State. In addition, as the application of the concept of internal protection varies greatly among Member States and as it is not uniformly used, it should remain optional for Member States.
Amendment 49
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
There are no good reasons why the decision on availability of internal protection should come after the determining authority has already decided that the applicant would otherwise be in need of protection. It should be part of the overall assessment of the applicant’s need for protection. In addition, while the Rapporteur welcomes the burden of proof being placed clearly on the determining authority, this should not preclude the applicant from rebutting any finding that internal protection would be available to him or her.
Amendment 50
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part
Or. en
Amendment 51
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d – indent 1
Or. en
Justification
The two indents describe two ways in which a particular social group might exist. The indents should therefore be alternative and not cumulative.
Amendment 52
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d – subparagraph 2
Or. en
Justification
Linking sexual orientation to acts considered criminal is out of place and should be removed. Sexual orientation in legislation can never mean acts considered to be criminal and has no legal added-value since the concept of sexual orientation is clearly defined in European treaties and EU law, and thus also recognised in national law.
Amendment 53
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Justification
The term 'identity' is somewhat restrictive. It may be a person's conscience that leads him or her to have a well-founded fear of being persecuted.
Amendment 54
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
Article 1(D) of the Geneva Convention does not deny the status of ‘refugee’ to certain categories of persons. It simply deprives them of the rights and benefits of the Convention. As this Article is also inspired by Article 1(D) of the Geneva Convention, the same approach should be taken in this Regulation.
Amendment 55
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Justification
The case-law of the CJEU, referred to in Recital 31, interprets the provisions of the existing Article 12(2)(b) and (c). Adding an additional paragraph to the Article merely adds confusion. The interpretation of the CJEU is laid out in Recital 31 and that is clear and sufficient to interpret Article 12(2)(b) and (c) with regard to terrorism and particularly cruel actions. Paragraph 5 should thus be deleted.
Amendment 56
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6
Or. en
Justification
The Commission's proposed text in Article 12(6) is terribly confusing insofar as it refers to case law. The principle of proportionality is a general principle of Union law. The CJEU, in its case-law, has stated that whether someone is refused refugee status on the grounds laid down in Article 12 depends on an assessment of the “seriousness of the acts committed”, which in turn requires taking account of “all the circumstances surrounding the acts in question and the situation of that person”. This inevitably requires a proportionality test. The Commission proposal is misleading in that regard and should be deleted.
Amendment 57
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – title
Or. en
Justification
Article 2(14) of this proposed Regulation provides for a definition of "withdrawal of international protection", which is intended to mean "the decision of competent authority to revoke, end or refuse to renew the refugee or subsidiary protection status". Given that definition, it is appropriate to use the expression "withdrawal of international protection" throughout the Articles and not to repeat constantly "revocation of, ending of or refusal to renew".
Amendment 58
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
Amendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.
Amendment 59
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point d
Or. en
Justification
There are no grounds in the Geneva Convention which correspond to the grounds for withdrawal set out in Article 14(1)(d) and (e). The Rapporteur believes they should be merged as it is the fact of having been convicted of a serious crime which would provide the 'reasonable grounds' for determining that the refugee is a danger to the security of the Member State in question.
Amendment 60
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point e
Or. en
Justification
There are no grounds in the Geneva Convention which correspond to the grounds for withdrawal set out in Article 14(1)(d) and (e). The Rapporteur believes they should be merged as it is the fact of having been convicted of a serious crime which would provide the 'reasonable grounds' for determining that the refugee is a danger to the security of the Member State in question.
Amendment 61
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point f
Or. en
Justification
The principle of non-refoulment is absolute according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the relevant case law of the CJEU and ECtHR. Therefore, no person should be returned if he or she would be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This additional paragraph is irrelevant and should be deleted.
Amendment 62
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
Amendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.
Amendment 63
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Justification
Amendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.
Amendment 64
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Justification
Amendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.
Amendment 65
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
A systematic review of protection needs would prove highly resource-intensive for the determining authorities of the Member States. It is not at all the case that the authorities responsible for decisions on the need for international protection are the same authorities as those which issue residence permits. It is also important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary.
Amendment 66
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point a
Or. en
Justification
This point is merged in with the introductory part of paragraph 1.
Amendment 67
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b
Or. en
Justification
A systematic review of protection needs would prove highly resource-intensive for the determining authorities of the Member States. It is not at all the case that the authorities responsible for decisions on the need for international protection are the same authorities as those which issue residence permits. It is also important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary. This point should therefore be deleted.
Amendment 68
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c
Or. en
Amendment 69
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Persons or groups of persons, who, for compelling reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment that adversely affect their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes and are in search and need of protection should qualify under this Regulation for international protection in the European Union.
Amendment 70
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – title
Or. en
Justification
Article 2(14) of this proposed Regulation provides for a definition of "withdrawal of international protection", which is intended to mean "the decision of competent authority to revoke, end or refuse to renew the refugee or subsidiary protection status". Given that definition, it is appropriate to use the expression "withdrawal of international protection" throughout the Articles and not to repeat constantly "revocation of, ending of or refusal to renew".
Amendment 71
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
Amendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.
Amendment 72
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point d
Or. en
Justification
The principle of non-refoulment is absolute according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the relevant case law of the CJEU and ECtHR. Therefore, no person should be returned if he or she would be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This additional paragraph is irrelevant and should be deleted.
Amendment 73
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Justification
Amendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.
Amendment 74
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
A systematic review of protection needs would prove highly resource-intensive for the determining authorities of the Member States. It is not at all the case that the authorities responsible for decisions on the need for international protection are the same authorities as those which issue residence permits. It is also important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary.
Amendment 75
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point a
Or. en
Justification
This point is merged in with the introductory part of paragraph 1.
Amendment 76
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point b
Or. en
Justification
A systematic review of protection needs would prove highly resource-intensive for the determining authorities of the Member States. It is not at all the case that the authorities responsible for decisions on the need for international protection are the same authorities as those which issue residence permits. It is also important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary. This point should therefore be deleted.
Amendment 77
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
Linguistic amendment.
Amendment 78
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Justification
The reference to the best interests of the child as a primary consideration should cover the whole of the Regulation, not just the provisions of Chapter VII as stated in the article.
Amendment 79
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
The principle of non-refoulment is absolute according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the relevant case law of the CJEU and ECtHR therefore no person shall be returned if he or she would be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This paragraph is therefore irrelevant and should be deleted.
Amendment 80
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 6
Or. en
Justification
Where Member States decide to enhance this article for maintaining family unity, they should not be restricted to those close relatives who were dependent in whole or part on the beneficiary. Discretion should remain with the Member States in that regard.
Amendment 81
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point a
Or. en
Justification
In the interests of encouraging integration in the host Member State, and in offering a positive incentive for beneficiaries of international protection not to engage in secondary movements, the standard period of validity of residence permits should be extended and harmonised. It is important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary. The harmonised duration of residence permits granted to those in need of international protection should take full account of current practice across the Member States and should not be based on a 'race to the bottom' principle.
Amendment 82
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point b
Or. en
Justification
In the interests of encouraging integration in the host Member State, and in offering a positive incentive for beneficiaries of international protection not to engage in secondary movements, the standard period of validity of residence permits should be extended and harmonised. It is important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary. The harmonised duration of residence permits granted to those in need of international protection should take full account of current practice across the Member States and should not be based on a 'race to the bottom' principle.
Amendment 83
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point a
Or. en
Justification
Amendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.
Amendment 84
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point b
Or. en
Justification
The principle of non-refoulment is absolute according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the relevant case law of the CJEU and ECtHR therefore no person shall be returned if he or she would be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This paragraph is therefore irrelevant and should be deleted.
Amendment 85
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point c
Or. en
Justification
The Commission proposes to delete the word ‘compelling’ which exists in the current Directive without providing good reason for such a deletion. Given that the paragraph deals with taking away the residence permit of someone who has been found to be in need of international protection, it is clear that the reasons for doing so should be ‘compelling’.
Amendment 86
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
In line with the amendments proposed to the length of residence permits granted to beneficiaries of international protection, the validity of the travel documents issued to beneficiaries of international protection should also be extended. The validity period of such documents should take account of standard periods of validity for travel documents issued by Member States.
Amendment 87
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
In line with the amendments proposed to the length of residence permits granted to beneficiaries of international protection, the validity of the travel documents issued to beneficiaries of international protection should also be extended. The validity period of such documents should take account of standard periods of validity for travel documents issued by Member States.
Amendment 88
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
It is not at all clear why persons who are in need of protection and who are granted subsidiary protection should not receive the social assistance enjoyed by other persons needing international protection. There should be no unequal treatment between persons in need of international protection. This is both legally dubious and administratively unhelpful. Once the need for protection has been established these persons all have the same social needs in the hosting Member State.
Amendment 89
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Justification
Amendment tabled to clarify the purpose of taking information on a confidential basis.
Amendment 90
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
The Rapporteur welcomes the provisions on access to integration measures but believes that such measures must always be free of charge, easily accessible to beneficiaries of international protection (i.e. not limited to one or two big cities in a Member State) and take account of any particular needs of the beneficiary in question. This is even more imperative if a Member State wishes to make participation compulsory for beneficiaries of international protection. Provision on language courses in the following paragraph.
Amendment 91
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Language skills are indispensable in order to ensure that beneficiaries have an adequate standard of living, realistic job and better integration prospects. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned increases self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society, and constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all beneficiaries from the date on which their application for international protection is granted.
Amendment 92
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
The Rapporteur welcomes the provisions on access to integration measures but believes that such measures must always be free of charge, easily accessible to beneficiaries of international protection (i.e. not limited to one or two big cities in a Member State) and take account of any particular needs of the beneficiary in question. This is even more imperative if a Member State wishes to make participation compulsory for beneficiaries of international protection.
Amendment 93
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 94
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph -1 (new)
Or. en
Justification
The Commission proposes for the beneficiaries of international protection to benefit from long term residence, however the period would only start once their status is granted. The Rapporteur is of the opinion that the protection needs and circumstance of an applicant for an international protection, whom protection is granted at a later stage, are exactly the same as those of beneficiaries on international protection. The period of long term residence should therefore start from the day when an application is made. The Council Directive 2003/109/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
Amendment 95
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2
Or. en
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
The proposed revision of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is striving to respond to the migration trends of the last few years and the arrival of large numbers of third-country nationals in the European Union, many of whom are in need of international protection. Proposing to again revise the CEAS so soon after the adoption of the last reform may not be the best way to ensure that the system operates fully and takes root in national policies and practices. However, the opportunity to reform the CEAS should be seized in order to improve the common asylum policy of the Union, which should be based on true solidarity and a fair sharing of responsibility, moving gradually to a uniform international protection status valid throughout the Union as enshrined in the Article 78(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The Rapporteur therefore sees the proposal to turn the Qualification Directive into a Regulation as an opportunity to move further towards a progressive, positive and upward harmonisation of standards for determining that persons are in need of international protection and defining the rights which those persons should enjoy. While the system is under strain, it is essential to reaffirm the European asylum tradition based on the Geneva Convention and strengthen additional protections that the Union has progressively developed on the basis of its common values.
Bearing this in mind, the Rapporteur had a particular eye in ensuring that case law developed by the two European courts, in Luxembourg and Strasbourg, was properly integrated in the revised piece of legislation, such as fundamental rights and anti-discrimination acquis. The Rapporteur took account of the policies and practices developed so far by the Member States on the basis of the Qualification Directive, and sought to improve it.
The logic of approximating the two protection status and further harmonisation guided the Rapporteur’s policy choice in this report. The current practice in the Member States and the very concept of protection does not effective provide grounds for the distinction between the two statuses. In particular the reality shows that the subsidiary protection is based on an unjustified assumption of more temporary nature of protection and limited in its effectiveness.
Furthermore, the Rapporteur tried to combine protection with integration rather than punitive measures, favouring thus long-term social cohesion and security for all, and discouraging secondary movement. A general concern for the future practical operation of the Regulation avoiding to overburden Member States’ administrations guided the amendments proposed.
Along this line, the Rapporteur wishes to amend the proposed compulsory review of the granted status of beneficiaries of international protection, both in case of changes of circumstances in the country of origin and at the moment of renewal. Although the Rapporteur agrees that evolutions in the country of origin, assessed in a harmonised way by the EU Agency for Asylum, may affect the protection needs, a systematic review would prove highly resource-intensive for the determining authorities in the Member States. Moreover, being constantly and potentially subject to such a review may undermine integration prospects of the beneficiary in his or her host society. The Rapporteur therefore proposes to leave the review as an option to Member States rather than imposing it as an automatic and compulsory part of the asylum status.
In the same way, the Rapporteur does not wish to see the revised EU legislation lead to a reduction of the length of residence permits currently granted by Member States to beneficiaries of international protection residing on their territory. She therefore proposes to amend the new EU standard period of validity of the residence permits for both refugees and beneficiaries of the subsidiary protection to better reflect the current practice at national level and provide beneficiaries with more legal security. This, again, aims to encourage the beneficiaries to invest in their lives and thus contribute to their hosting communities.
Moreover, amendments on this point tend to align the length of the residence permit for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Indeed, the latter status does not respond to a need for protection that would be more temporary, but simply different in that it does not fall under the refugee legal definition and status. Although not ‘refugees’ stricto sensu, those persons also face great risks in their country of origin, cannot return safely and have to rebuild their lives in a country that provides them with ‘refuge’. It is therefore as essential for them as it is for refugee to try and build a legal framework encouraging their integration. Beyond the period of validity of the residence permit, this logic of approximating the two protection status guided a number of amendments tabled by the rapporteur.
The level of harmonisation reached today is reason for pride but the trend needs to be maintained. The Rapporteur wishes to bring forward the European humanistic tradition of asylum, which has travelled through centuries and progressively rooted throughout the whole EU territory. This means consolidating the acquis and further harmonising among Member States. This involves also anticipating and looking to the future. In this respect, the Rapporteur proposes an innovative amendment around environmental change. Natural or man-made evolutions of the planet are already creating situations of vulnerability and are likely to affect more and more human-beings. They may oblige persons to leave their place of residence and even their country to find shelter abroad. International protection provided under EU law should also cover these new needs of protection.
Protection against acts of persecution may not always imply leaving one’s country though. The Rapporteur acknowledges that in individual cases ‘refuge’ could be found within one’s own country of origin, should the persecution or serious harm emanates from the State or agents associated with the State. Obliging Member States examining internal protection alternative after the determining authority has already decided that the applicant would otherwise be in need of protection, is going one step too far. The internal protection alternative should remain, in limited cases, only as an option for Member States and not an obligation.
To conclude, amendments proposed by the Rapporteur respond to the overall aim of ensuring that those in need of protection are properly recognised and benefit from rights that will facilitate their integration, wherever they reside across the Union. The Rapporteur wishes to underline that reforming the CEAS has to do with improving the protection granted to third-country nationals in need, in accordance with EU tradition and values. The EU has to provide for its own security but the two go together - the EU must be safe if it is to remain a sanctuary for those who flee conflicts and barbarity and seek protection. Putting the stress on sanctions and possible abuse of the system is only likely to reinforce a general feeling of insecurity, on the side both of persons in need of protection and of EU citizens. A positive message should be sent in both directions so that third-country nationals who have not necessarily chosen to come to the EU can quickly feel part of a society where protection and security are reconciled - this is what the Rapporteur is seeking to achieve with her proposals.
ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
The following list is drawn up on a purely voluntary basis under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur. The rapporteur has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the draft report: