En En Amendments

European Parliament 2014-2019

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

2016/0133(COD)

4.4.2017

AMENDMENTS 535 - 771

Draft report Cecilia Wikström (PE599.751v02-00)

Establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast)

Proposal for a regulation (COM(2016)0270 – C8-0173/2016 – 2016/0133(COD))

AM\1122581EN.docx PE602.908v01-00

EN United in diversity EN AM_Com_LegReport

PE602.908v01-00 2/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Amendment 535 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Kati Piri, Miriam Dalli, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The criteria for determining the 1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied Member State responsible shall be applied only once, in the order in which they are in the order in which they are set out in set out in this Chapter. Chapter III, IV and VII of this Regulation.

Or. en

Justification

In order to be coherent with the Resolution on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration approved by the Parliament in April 2016, and with the Resolution on migration and refugees in Europe approved in September 2015, the shadow rapporteur is proposing a centralised, permanent and automatic mechanism of fair distribution of responsibilities among Member States. In addition, the shadow rapporteur doesn´t support the principle of permanent responsibility as proposed by the EC.

Amendment 536 Laura Ferrara, Ignazio Corrao, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Rosa D'Amato, David Borrelli, Marco Zullo, Marco Valli, Daniela Aiuto, Eleonora Evi, Piernicola Pedicini, Isabella Adinolfi, Dario Tamburrano, Laura Agea, Tiziana Beghin

Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. it

Justification

Necessary to ensure consistency with previous amendments.

AM\1122581EN.docx 3/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Amendment 537 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 538 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed to maintain the logic of the text as it should serve to ensure the realisation of the applicant’s right to family life and enhance the system's capacity to determine efficiently and effectively a single Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection as the European Commission highlights in its explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Regulation. This amendment is inextricably linked to the admissible amendments to Recital 19 and Article 41(2).

Amendment 539 József Nagy, Richard Sulík, Anna Záborská, Jana Žitňanská, Tomáš Zdechovský

Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1

PE602.908v01-00 4/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The criteria for determining the 1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied Member State responsible shall be applied, only once, in the order in which they are in the order in which they are set out in this set out in this Chapter. Chapter.

Or. en

Amendment 540 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The criteria for determining the 1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied Member State responsible shall be only once, in the order in which they are applied, in the order in which they are set set out in this Chapter. out in this Chapter.

Or. en

Justification

The first member state cannot become indefinitely responsible for a person if it has removed the applicant from the Union and the applicant re-enters, at a later stage, through another MS. This provision does not treat MSs equally. Moreover, the re-entrance of third country nationals in the EU through another MS, after the successful removal from it should not be considered as secondary movement, which the regulation seeks to prevent.

Amendment 541 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. The Member State responsible in 2. The Member State responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in this accordance with the criteria set out in this Chapter shall be determined on the basis of Chapter shall be determined on the basis of the situation obtaining when the applicant the situation obtaining when the applicant first lodged his or her application for registered his or her application for international protection with a Member international protection with a Member

AM\1122581EN.docx 5/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN State. State within the meaning of Article 27 [Proposal for a regulation establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU].

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed to maintain the logic of the text as it should serve to enhance the system's capacity to determine efficiently and effectively a single Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection as the European Commission highlights in its explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Regulation. This amendment is inextricably linked to the admissible amendments under the draft report aiming to strengthen the applicant’s procedural rights and to the ongoing consideration of the Commission Proposal for a regulation establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU.

Amendment 542 Elly Schlein, Caterina Chinnici, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. The Member State responsible in 2. The Member State responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in this accordance with the criteria set out in these Chapter shall be determined on the basis of Chapters shall be determined on the basis the situation obtaining when the applicant of the situation obtaining when the first lodged his or her application for applicant first lodged his or her application international protection with a Member for international protection with a Member State. State.

Or. en

Justification

The amendment is a consequence of the amendment on the first paragraph of the same Article.

Amendment 543 Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Nathalie Griesbeck, Julie Ward, Damiano Zoffoli, Barbara Matera, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Silvia Costa, Carlos Coelho

PE602.908v01-00 6/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point 1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(1) In view of the application of the criteria referred to in Articles 10 to 13 and 18, Member States shall take into consideration any available evidence regarding the presence, on the territory of a Member State, of family members, relatives or any other family relations of the applicant, on condition that such evidence is produced before another Member State accepts the request to take charge or take back the person concerned, pursuant to Articles 22 and 25 respectively, and that the previous applications for international protection of the applicant have not yet been the subject of a first decision regarding the substance.

Or. en

Justification

Restrictions to the possibilities to submit information and evidence as necessary for a correct determination of responsibility would likely result in several procedural stages and an increased recourse to appeals. The possibility for applicants to provide any available evidence regarding the presence, on the territory of a Member State, of family members, relatives or any other family relations of the applicant, before responsibility for an application for international protection is accepted by the requested Member State, should be retained.

Amendment 544 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2 a. In view of the application of the criteria referred to in Articles 10a to 14a and 18, Member States shall take into consideration any available evidence

AM\1122581EN.docx 7/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN regarding the presence, on the territory of a Member State, of family members, relatives or any other family relations of the applicant, on condition that such evidence is produced before another Member State accepts the request to take charge or take back the person concerned, pursuant to Articles 22 and 25 respectively, and that the previous applications for international protection of the applicant have not yet been the subject of a first decision regarding the substance.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment reinstates the old Article 7(3), that the Commission proposes to delete. Hence, this addition is an amendment to a "grey part" of the text.

Amendment 545 Elly Schlein, Caterina Chinnici, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller, Marju Lauristin

Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2 a. In view of the application of the criteria referred to in Articles 10 to 13a and 18, Member States shall take into consideration any available evidence regarding the presence, on the territory of a Member State, of family members, relatives or any other family relations of the applicant, on condition that such evidence is produced before another Member State accepts the request to take charge or take back the person concerned, pursuant to Articles 22 and 25 respectively, and that the previous applications for international protection of the applicant have not yet been the subject of a first decision regarding the substance.

PE602.908v01-00 8/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Or. en

Justification

The amendment intends to strengthen the guarantees for family reunification procedures, in particular by stressing the need to take into consideration new elements that may arise on the presence of family members, relatives or other family relations in the Member states.

Amendment 546 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 10

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 10 deleted Minors 1. Where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, only the criteria set out in this article shall apply, in the order in which they are set out in paragraphs 2 to 5. 2. The Member State responsible shall be that where a family member of the unaccompanied minor is legally present, provided that it is in the best interests of the minor. Where the applicant is a married minor whose spouse is not legally present on the territory of the Member States, the Member State responsible shall be the Member State where the father, mother or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, or sibling is legally present. 3. Where the applicant has a relative who is legally present in another Member State and where it is established, based on an individual examination, that the relative can take care of him or her, that Member State shall unite the minor with his or her relative and shall be the Member State responsible, provided that it is in the best interests of the minor. 4. Where family members or relatives as AM\1122581EN.docx 9/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, stay in more than one Member State, the Member State responsible shall be decided on the basis of what is in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor. 5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor. 6. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 57 concerning the identification of family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor; the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a relative to take care of the unaccompanied minor, including where family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor stay in more than one Member State. In exercising its powers to adopt delegated acts, the Commission shall not exceed the scope of the best interests of the child as provided for under Article 8(3). 7. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for the consultation and the exchange of information between Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter VII.

Amendment 547

PE602.908v01-00 10/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Laura Ferrara, Ignazio Corrao, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Rosa D'Amato, David Borrelli, Marco Zullo, Marco Valli, Daniela Aiuto, Eleonora Evi, Piernicola Pedicini, Isabella Adinolfi, Dario Tamburrano, Laura Agea, Tiziana Beghin

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. The Member State responsible shall 2. The Member State responsible shall be that where a family member of the be that where a family member of the unaccompanied minor is legally present, unaccompanied minor is legally present, provided that it is in the best interests of provided that it is in the best interests of the minor. Where the applicant is a the minor. married minor whose spouse is not legally present on the territory of the Member States, the Member State responsible shall be the Member State where the father, mother or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, or sibling is legally present.

Or. it

Justification

Necessary to ensure consistency with the enlarged notion of family.

Amendment 548 Monika Hohlmeier

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. The Member State responsible shall 2. The Member State responsible shall be that where a family member of the be that where a family member or a sibling unaccompanied minor is legally present, of the unaccompanied minor is legally provided that it is in the best interests of present, provided that it is in the best the minor. Where the applicant is a married interests of the minor. Where the applicant minor whose spouse is not legally present is a married minor whose spouse is not on the territory of the Member States, the legally present on the territory of the Member State responsible shall be the Member States, the Member State Member State where the father, mother or responsible shall be the Member State other adult responsible for the minor, where the father, mother or other adult whether by law or by the practice of that responsible for the minor, whether by law Member State, or sibling is legally present. or by the practice of that Member State, or

AM\1122581EN.docx 11/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN sibling is legally present.

Or. en

Justification

Extending the family by including the siblings might help integration, but first and foremost it will lead to a overburden of Member States which already give refuge to an extensive amount of refugees when it comes to family reunification. The definition of family shall therefore stay the same as it was in Dublin III.

Amendment 549 Elly Schlein, Caterina Chinnici, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Péter Niedermüller, Marju Lauristin

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. The Member State responsible shall 2. The Member State responsible shall be that where a family member of the be that where a family member of the unaccompanied minor is legally present, unaccompanied minor is legally present, provided that it is in the best interests of unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the minor. Where the applicant is a the best interests of the minor. Where the married minor whose spouse is not legally applicant is a minor, the Member State present on the territory of the Member responsible shall be the Member State States, the Member State responsible shall where the father, mother, grandparent or be the Member State where the father, other adult responsible for the minor, mother or other adult responsible for the whether by law or by the practice of that minor, whether by law or by the practice of Member State, or sibling is legally present. that Member State, or sibling is legally present.

Or. en

Justification

The amendment aligns the text to the extension of the definition of family members proposed by the shadow rapporteur at Article 2(g).

Amendment 550 Monika Hohlmeier

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 4

PE602.908v01-00 12/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Where family members or relatives 4. Where family members, siblings or as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, stay in relatives as referred to in paragraphs 2 and more than one Member State, the Member 3, stay in more than one Member State, the State responsible shall be decided on the Member State responsible shall be decided basis of what is in the best interests of the on the basis of what is in the best interests unaccompanied minor. of the unaccompanied minor.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 551 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini, Bodil Valero on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. In the absence of a family member 5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for has registered his or her application for international protection, unless it is international protection and is present, demonstrated that this is not in the best unless it is demonstrated that this is not in interests of the minor. the best interests of the child. A multidisciplinary best interests assessment shall be carried out in accordance with Article 8 in the Member State where the minor is present and shall determine whether the Member State responsible in line with an assessment of the child's best interests is the Member State where the minor has made an application, the Member State where the minor is present or another Member State based on Article 14A NEW.

Or. en AM\1122581EN.docx 13/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Justification

This amendment is needed to maintain the logic of the text as it should serve to ensure the realisation of children's right to be heard, procedural rights, and right to family life, in full respect with his or her best interests, thus enhancing the system's capacity to determine efficiently and effectively a single Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection as the European Commission highlights in its explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Regulation. This amendment is inextricably linked to the admissible amendments under the draft report aiming to operationalise the assessment of the best interests of the child and to strengthen their procedural rights.

Amendment 552 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Marju Lauristin, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. In the absence of a family member 5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall and 3, and if no other criteria set out in be that where the unaccompanied minor Chapter III and IV apply, including first has lodged his or her application for Articles 19 and 20, the Member State international protection, unless it is responsible shall be determined by the demonstrated that this is not in the best allocation mechanism set out in Chapter interests of the minor. VII, provided that the minor should be always granted the choice among the Member States of possible allocation according to Article 36c. Any decision on the Member State responsible should be preceded by a multidisciplinary assessment of the best interests of the minor, including in case of allocation.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur seeks a good balance to ensure the full respect of the child´s rights and best interests, the case law of the ECJ (and particularly the crucial decision C648/11), and the need to ensure a fair distribution of responsibilities on asylum requests among Member States. The amendment proposes that the criteria for family reunification shall be fully prioritised, and only in the case there are no family members or relatives of the minor in the Member States, the other criteria as set out in Chapter III and IV would apply, including the discretionary clause (which would also allow a Member State to assume responsibility on a minor who has other family relations in its territory). As a last resort, if none of the PE602.908v01-00 14/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN previous criteria apply, the Member State responsible should be determined by the allocation mechanism, but ensuring always to the minor, assisted by the guardian, and following a multidisciplinary assessment of the best interests of the child, a certain degree of choice among the possible Member States of allocation according to Article 36.

Amendment 553 Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Caterina Chinnici, Nathalie Griesbeck, Barbara Matera, Damiano Zoffoli, Hilde Vautmans, Julie Ward, Silvia Costa, Simona Bonafè, Michela Giuffrida, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Luigi Morgano, Carlos Coelho

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. In the absence of a family member 5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor be that where the unaccompanied minor is first has lodged his or her application for present, unless it is not in the best international protection, unless it is interests of the minor on the basis of the demonstrated that this is not in the best multidisciplinary best interests assessment interests of the minor. conducted in accordance with Article 8. Prior to such a determination the applicant shall be allowed to avail himself or herself of the procedures referred to in Article 19.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is aimed at strengthening the provisions to protect minor applicants.

Amendment 554 Alessandra Mussolini, Salvatore Domenico Pogliese, Barbara Matera, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. In the absence of a family member 5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall and 3, and if no Member State has be that where the unaccompanied minor accepted under Article 19 to examine the first has lodged his or her application for application becoming the Member State AM\1122581EN.docx 15/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN international protection, unless it is responsible, the Member State responsible demonstrated that this is not in the best shall be the one where the minor is present interests of the minor. after having lodged an application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor.

Or. en

Justification

It should be discarded the idea that minor, in the case of absence of any family tie, and when the discretionary clause is not applicable, should be sent back to a Member State different from the one where he/she is present . In drafting this amendment, an indispensable reference has been represented by the ECJ judgment in C-648/11.

Amendment 555 Laura Ferrara, Ignazio Corrao, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Rosa D'Amato, David Borrelli, Marco Zullo, Marco Valli, Daniela Aiuto, Eleonora Evi, Piernicola Pedicini, Isabella Adinolfi, Dario Tamburrano, Laura Agea, Tiziana Beghin

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. it

Justification

The proposed amendment is intended to step up provisions regarding the best interests of children, sparing them any unnecessary transfers.

Amendment 556 Monika Hohlmeier

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5

PE602.908v01-00 16/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. In the absence of a family member 5. In the absence of a family member, or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 a sibling or a relative as referred to in and 3, the Member State responsible shall paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State be that where the unaccompanied minor responsible shall be that where the first has lodged his or her application for unaccompanied minor first has lodged his international protection, unless it is or her application for international demonstrated that this is not in the best protection, unless it is demonstrated that interests of the minor. this is not in the best interests of the minor.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 557 Daniel Dalton, Helga Stevens, Branislav Škripek

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Any kind of blanket ban on returning unaccompanied minors to the first Member State of entry, would set a dangerous precedent and could encourage unaccompanied minors to make dangerous journey's across Europe alone or to put themselves in the hands of traffickers. There may be cases where it would be in the best interest of the child to be returned to the first Member State and there may also be cases where it is in the best interest of the child not to be returned to the first Member States, both of these situations are allowed for in this wording.

AM\1122581EN.docx 17/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Amendment 558 Filiz Hyusmenova

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Terminological coherence with other EU law provisions

Amendment 559 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller, Marju Lauristin, Dietmar Köster

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5 a. Where a minor is accompanied by one parent, adult sibling or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, and one parent or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, is legally present in a Member State, the Member State responsible shall be that where the parent or other adult responsible for the minor is legally present, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor.

PE602.908v01-00 18/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Or. en

Justification

The amendment intends to cover situations in which the minor could not be reunited with another family member, relative or other adult responsible for him or her, only because accompanied by another adult.

Amendment 560 Bodil Valero on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5 a. Where a minor is accompanied by one parent, adult sibling or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of a Member State, and one parent or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or the practice of a Member State, is legally present in the territory of a Member State, the Member State responsible shall be that where the parent or other adult responsible for the minor is legally present, provided that this is in the best interests of the child.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 561

AM\1122581EN.docx 19/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Caterina Chinnici, Nathalie Griesbeck, Damiano Zoffoli, Barbara Matera, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Michela Giuffrida, Hilde Vautmans, Silvia Costa, Luigi Morgano, Julie Ward, Simona Bonafè, Carlos Coelho

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5 a. Where a minor is accompanied by one parent, adult sibling or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, and one parent or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, is legally present in a Member State, the Member State responsible shall be that where the parent or other adult responsible for the minor is legally present, provided that this is in the best interests of the minor.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is aimed at covering cases where a child travels with one adult. In such cases, the child cannot be considered as unaccompanied and therefore cannot benefit from the provisions under Art. 10 as currently formulated. The insertion of this paragraph would fill a gap in the current system and ensure respect for the principle of family unity.

Amendment 562 Monika Hohlmeier

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6. The Commission is empowered to 6. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 57 concerning the identification of Article 57 concerning the identification of family members or relatives of the family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor; the criteria for unaccompanied minor; the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family establishing the existence of proven family links; the criteria for assessing the capacity links; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a relative to take care of the of a relative to take care of the unaccompanied minor, including where unaccompanied minor, including where family members, siblings or relatives of the family members, siblings or relatives of the

PE602.908v01-00 20/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN unaccompanied minor stay in more than unaccompanied minor stay in more than one Member State. In exercising its powers one Member State. In exercising its powers to adopt delegated acts, the Commission to adopt delegated acts, the Commission shall not exceed the scope of the best shall not exceed the scope of the best interests of the child as provided for under interests of the child as provided for under Article 8(3). Article 8(3).

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 563 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 10 a Family members 1. If a family member of the applicant, irrespective of the fact that the family already existed in the country of origin, is a national of a Member State, or is a third country national authorized by a Member State to stay in its territory as an asylum seeker, or as holder of any residence permit issued under EU law or national law of that Member State for a period of one year or longer, such Member shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing. 2. Where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the determining Member State shall always conduct a previous assessment of the best interests of the minor. 3. Where the applicant is an

AM\1122581EN.docx 21/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN unaccompanied minor and family members as referred to in paragraph 1 stay in more than one Member State, the Member State responsible shall be decided on the basis of what is in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor, after having heard his or her opinion. 4. The identification of family members and the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links are established according to the procedure described in Article 24.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter VII.

Amendment 564 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Dietmar Köster, Marju Lauristin, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 10 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 10 a Family member in a Member State Where the applicant has a family member, regardless of whether the family was previously formed in the country of origin , who is a third country national with a long-term residence permit residing in a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.

Or. en

Justification

The amendment intends to cover the situations in which an applicant has a family member who is legally residing in a Member State with a long-term residence permit. If an applicant PE602.908v01-00 22/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN can reunite with a family member who is a beneficiary of international protection or an applicant, it should be a fortiori possible for him or her to reunite with a family member legally residing in one of the Member States.

Amendment 565 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 11

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 11 deleted Family members who are beneficiaries of international protection Where the applicant has a family member, regardless of whether the family was previously formed in the country of origin, who has been allowed to reside as a beneficiary of international protection in a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter VII.

Amendment 566 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini, Bodil Valero on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Family members who are beneficiaries of Family members international protection

Or. en

AM\1122581EN.docx 23/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Justification

Amendment 567 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini, Bodil Valero on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where the applicant has a family member, Where the applicant has a family member, regardless of whether the family was regardless of whether the family was previously formed in the country of origin, previously formed in the country of origin, who has been allowed to reside as a who is legally residing in a Member State, beneficiary of international protection in a that Member State shall be responsible for Member State, that Member State shall be examining the application for international responsible for examining the application protection, provided that the persons for international protection, provided that concerned expressed their desire in writing. the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 568 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 11 a (new)

PE602.908v01-00 24/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 11 a Relatives 1. If a relative of the applicant is a national of a Member State, or is a third country national authorized by a Member State to stay in its territory as an asylum seeker, or as holder of any residence permit issued under EU law or national law of that Member State for a period of one year or longer, such Member shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, subject to the following conditions: - the persons concerned must express their consent in writing; - it is established, based on an individual examination, that the relative can take care of the applicant until the final decision on his or her claim for international protection [under Article 4 (d) of proposal for a new Procedures Regulation, 2016/0224 (COD)].

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter VII.

Amendment 569 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 12

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 12 deleted Family members who are applicants for international protection If the applicant has a family member in a Member State whose application for international protection in that Member State has not yet been the subject of a first AM\1122581EN.docx 25/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN decision regarding the substance, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter VII.

Amendment 570 Monika Hohlmeier

Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where several family members submit Where several family members and/or applications for international protection in minor unmarried siblings submit the same Member State simultaneously, or applications for international protection in on dates close enough for the procedures the same Member State simultaneously, or for determining the Member State on dates close enough for the procedures responsible to be conducted together, and for determining the Member State where the application of the criteria set out responsible to be conducted together, and in this Regulation would lead to their being where the application of the criteria set out separated, the Member State responsible in this Regulation would lead to their being shall be determined on the basis of the separated, the Member State responsible following provisions: shall be determined on the basis of the following provisions:

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 571 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Péter Niedermüller, Birgit Sippel, Miriam Dalli

PE602.908v01-00 26/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) responsibility for examining the (a) responsibility for examining the applications for international protection of applications for international protection of all the family members and/or minor all the family members and/or minor unmarried siblings shall lie with the siblings shall lie with the Member State Member State which the criteria indicate is which the criteria indicate is responsible responsible for taking charge of the largest for taking charge of the largest number of number of them; them;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment intends to align the Article to the modifications proposed to the family member definition under Article 2(g).

Amendment 572 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Dietmar Köster, Marju Lauristin, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 13 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 13 a Family reunification procedure 1. The determining Member State shall be responsible for conducting a special family reunification procedure for the applicant in order to ensure swift family reunification and access to the asylum procedures for applicants where there are, prima facie, sufficient indications that they are likely to have the right to family reunification in accordance with Articles 10, 11, 12 or 13. 2. In establishing whether there are sufficient indications that the applicant has family in the Member State he or she claims the determining Member State AM\1122581EN.docx 27/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN shall ensure that the applicant has understood the applicable definition of family members and/or relatives and ensure that the applicant is certain that the alleged family members and/or relatives are not present in another Member State. The determining Member State shall also ensure that the applicant understands that he or she will not be allowed to stay in the Member State where he or she claims to have family members and/or relatives unless such a claim can be verified by that Member State. If the information provided by the applicant does not give manifest reasons to doubt the presence of family members and/or relatives in the Member State indicated by the applicant it shall be concluded that, prima facie, there are sufficient indications that the applicant has family members and/or relatives in that Member State in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 1. 3. If it is determined pursuant to paragraph 1 and 2 that an applicant likely has, prima facie, the right of family reunification in accordance with Articles 10, 11, 12 or 13 the determining Member State shall notify the Member State concerned thereof and the applicant shall be transferred to that Member State. 4. The Member State receiving an applicant in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 4 shall make the determination of whether the conditions for family reunifications in accordance with Article 10, 11, 12 or 13 are met. If it is determined that the conditions for family reunification are not met the receiving Member State shall ensure that the applicant is relocated to another Member State in accordance with the procedure in article 24a. 5. The authorities responsible of the Member State where the applicant claims to have family members and/or relatives present shall assist the authorities responsible of the determining Member State with answering any questions aimed

PE602.908v01-00 28/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN at clarifying whether the alleged family links are correct. The absence of official documents issued by the State of origin cannot be the only reason for not declaring satisfied the requirements for family reunification, and other evidence should also be admitted, including the declarations from international organizations. 6. For the purposes of the procedures provided for in this Article, the Commission shall adopt an implementing act regarding the evidentiary requirements to prove relevant family links, including the type of proof or evidence required, including partial documentation issued by the State of origin or declarations from international organisations. A different understanding of such proof or evidence between the determining Member State and the Member State receiving the applicant shall not result in the applicant being subject to the procedure under Article 24a.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur fully supports the light family reunification procedure as proposed by the rapporteur, and she thinks it should be always possible for a determining Member State to use it, in order to ensure a swift access to the asylum procedure.

Amendment 573 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 14

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 14 deleted Issue of residence documents or visas 1. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid residence document or a residence document which has expired less than two AM\1122581EN.docx 29/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN years before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the document shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. 2. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application , the Member State which issued the visa shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, unless the visa was issued on behalf of another Member State under a representation arrangement as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . In such a case, the represented Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. 3. Where the applicant is in possession of more than one valid residence document or visa issued by different Member States, the responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall be assumed by the Member States in the following order: (a) the Member State which issued the residence document conferring the right to the longest period of residency or, where the periods of validity are identical, the Member State which issued the residence document having the latest expiry date; (b) the Member State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date where the various visas are of the same type; (c) where visas are of different kinds, the Member State which issued the visa having the longest period of validity or, where the periods of validity are identical, the Member State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date. 4. The fact that the residence document or visa was issued on the basis of a false or assumed identity or on submission of forged, counterfeit or invalid documents shall not prevent responsibility being PE602.908v01-00 30/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN allocated to the Member State which issued it. However, the Member State issuing the residence document or visa shall not be responsible if it can establish that a fraud was committed after the document or visa had been issued. ______25 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter VII.

Amendment 574 József Nagy, Richard Sulík, Tomáš Zdechovský

Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Where the applicant is in 1. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid residence document possession of a valid residence document, or a residence document which has the Member State which issued the expired less than two years before lodging document shall be responsible for the first application , the Member State examining the application for international which issued the document shall be protection. responsible for examining the application for international protection.

Or. en

Amendment 575 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Alessandra Mussolini, Barbara Matera

Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1122581EN.docx 31/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN 1. Where the applicant is in 1. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid residence document possession of a valid residence document or a residence document which has expired or a residence document which has expired less than two years before lodging the first before lodging the first application , the application , the Member State which Member State which issued the document issued the document shall be responsible shall be responsible for examining the for examining the application for application for international protection. international protection.

Or. en

Justification

Cessation of responsibility for the member state which has issued visa / residence documents is maintained, whereas this is not the case for the MS of entry (art 15).

Amendment 576 Miltiadis Kyrkos

Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Where the applicant is in 1. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid residence document possession of a valid residence document or a residence document which has expired or a residence document which has expired less than two years before lodging the first before lodging the first application , the application , the Member State which Member State which issued the document issued the document shall be responsible shall be responsible for examining the for examining the application for application for international protection. international protection.

Or. en

Justification

Cessation of responsibility for the member state which has issued visa / residence documents is maintained, whereas this is not the case for the member state of entry (art 15).

Amendment 577 József Nagy, Richard Sulík, Tomáš Zdechovský

Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE602.908v01-00 32/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN 2. Where the applicant is in 2. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired possession of a valid visa, the Member less than six months before lodging the State which issued the visa shall be first application , the Member State which responsible for examining the application issued the visa shall be responsible for for international protection, unless the visa examining the application for international was issued on behalf of another Member protection, unless the visa was issued on State under a representation arrangement as behalf of another Member State under a provided for in Article 8 of Regulation representation arrangement as provided for (EC) No 810/2009 of the European in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No Parliament and of the Council25 . In such a 810/2009 of the European Parliament and case, the represented Member State shall of the Council25 . In such a case, the be responsible for examining the represented Member State shall be application for international protection. responsible for examining the application for international protection. ______25 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the 25 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1). Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).

Or. en

Amendment 578 Juan Fernando López Aguilar

Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Where the applicant is in 2. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired possession of a valid visa or a less than six months before lodging the humanitarian visa or a visa expired less first application , the Member State which than six months before lodging the first issued the visa shall be responsible for application , the Member State which examining the application for international issued the visa shall be responsible for protection, unless the visa was issued on examining the application for international behalf of another Member State under a protection, unless the visa was issued on representation arrangement as provided for behalf of another Member State under a in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No representation arrangement as provided for 810/2009 of the European Parliament and in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No of the Council25 . In such a case, the 810/2009 of the European Parliament and represented Member State shall be of the Council25 . In such a case, the responsible for examining the application represented Member State shall be for international protection. responsible for examining the application for international protection.

AM\1122581EN.docx 33/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN ______25 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the 25 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1). Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).

Or. en

Justification

When a humanitarian visa has been granted by a Member State to an individual this should be considered in order to establish the country responsible for examining the application for international protection.

Amendment 579 Miltiadis Kyrkos

Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Where the applicant is in 2. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the before lodging the first application , the first application , the Member State which Member State which issued the visa shall issued the visa shall be responsible for be responsible for examining the examining the application for international application for international protection, protection, unless the visa was issued on unless the visa was issued on behalf of behalf of another Member State under a another Member State under a representation arrangement as provided for representation arrangement as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . In such a case, the of the Council25 . In such a case, the represented Member State shall be represented Member State shall be responsible for examining the application responsible for examining the application for international protection. for international protection. ______25 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the 25 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1). Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).

Or. en

PE602.908v01-00 34/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Justification

Cessation of responsibility for the member state which has issued visa / residence documents is maintained, whereas this is not the case for the member state of entry (art 15).

Amendment 580 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Alessandra Mussolini, Barbara Matera

Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Cessation of responsibility for the member state which has issued visa / residence documents is maintained, whereas this is not the case for the member state of entry (art 15).

Amendment 581 József Nagy, Richard Sulík, Tomáš Zdechovský

Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 3 a (new)

AM\1122581EN.docx 35/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3 a. Where the applicant is in possession only of one or more residence documents which have expired less than two years previously or one or more visas which have expired less than six months previously and which enabled him or her actually to enter the territory of a Member State, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply for such time as the applicant has not left the territories of the Member States. Where the applicant is in possession of one or more residence documents which have expired more than two years previously or one or more visas which have expired more than six months previously and enabled him or her actually to enter the territory of a Member State and where he has not left the territories of the Member States, the Member State in which the application for international protection is lodged shall be responsible.

Or. en

Amendment 582 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 14 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 14 a Meaningful links with a Member State 1. An applicant shall be allocated to a Member State other than the one where he or she first has lodged his or her application for international protection, where the former State is determined according to one of the following situations: a) a sponsor expresses the intention and holds the capacity to take care of the PE602.908v01-00 36/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN applicant until the final decision on his or her claim for international protection [under Article 4 (d) of proposal for a new Procedures Regulation, 2016/0224 (COD)] and can cover the travel costs to the country of nationality in the case that the claim is not accepted with a final decision and a return decision is adopted; b) the Member State has released to the applicant a valid residence document, or the applicant held in the past a residence document for a stay not inferior to one year in that country for work, study or research purposes. This does not apply if the residence document was revoked or not renewed for reasons of public security or public order; c) the applicant holds academic or professional diplomas or qualifications released by the authorities of one Member State, or by a third State in the framework of programs of international cooperation in the field of education or training managed, promoted or financed by a Member State, including but not limited to bilateral agreements of mutual recognition of diplomas or qualifications. d) the applicant holds a satisfactory knowledge of one of the official languages of a Member State, to be ascertained through certificates or a linguistic test. 2. The assessment of the recurrence of the requisites spelled in paragraph 1 is conducted according to the procedure described in Article 24. 3. A delegated act adopted according to the procedure described in Article 57(2) shall determine: - the formalities and the eligibility requisites to be satisfied by a sponsor under paragraph 1(a), and the other necessary implementing measures; - the implementing measures for the situations under paragraph 1(b), 1(c), 1(d).

AM\1122581EN.docx 37/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter VII.

Amendment 583 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini, Ska Keller on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 14 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 14 a Meaningful links with a Member State 1. Where the applicant has meaningful links with a Member State, including language skills, education, professional skills or cultural ties which would facilitate his or her integration, that Member State will be responsible for examining the application for international protection.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed to maintain the logic of the text as it should serve to enhance the system's capacity to determine efficiently and effectively a single Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection and to prevent secondary movements through improved opportunities for long-term integration of applicants, as the European Commission highlights in its explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Regulation. This amendment is inextricably linked to the admissible amendments under the draft report ensuring that the internal logic of the text, aimed at increasing applicants' integration prospects and decreasing “secondary movements” is maintained.

Amendment 584 Laura Ferrara, Ignazio Corrao, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Rosa D'Amato, David Borrelli, Marco Zullo, Marco Valli, Daniela Aiuto, Eleonora Evi, Piernicola Pedicini, Isabella Adinolfi, Dario Tamburrano, Laura Agea, Tiziana Beghin

Proposal for a regulation Article 15 PE602.908v01-00 38/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 15 deleted Entry 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 shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.

Or. it

Justification

Necessary to ensure consistency with previous amendments presented during preparation of recast text.

Amendment 585 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 15

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 15 deleted Entry 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 shall be AM\1122581EN.docx 39/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN responsible for examining the application for international protection.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter VII.

Amendment 586 Salvatore Domenico Pogliese

Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Entry Entry and/or stay

Or. it

Justification

The purpose of the amendment is to keep the heading of Article 13 in the current text.

Amendment 587 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Miriam Dalli, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where it is established, on the basis of deleted 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 shall be responsible for examining the application

PE602.908v01-00 40/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN for international protection.

Or. en

Justification

In line with the modifications proposed to Article 3, this Article should be deleted. In order to be coherent with the Resolution on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration approved by the Parliament in April 2016, and with the Resolution on migration and refugees in Europe approved in September 2015, the shadow rapporteur is proposing a centralised, permanent and automatic mechanism of fair distribution of responsibilities among Member States. For this purpose, the first country of entry criterion should be deleted, since it has placed over the years a disproportionate burden on front-line MS.

Amendment 588 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed to maintain the logic of the text as it should serve to enhance the system's capacity to determine efficiently and effectively a single Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection and to prevent secondary movements through improved opportunities for long-term integration of applicants, as the European Commission highlights in its explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Regulation. This amendment is inextricably linked to the admissible amendments under the draft report ensuring that the internal logic of the text, aimed at AM\1122581EN.docx 41/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN increasing applicants' integration prospects and decreasing “secondary movements” is maintained.

Amendment 589 Salvatore Domenico Pogliese, Alessandra Mussolini

Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where it is established, on the basis of Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for State thus entered shall be responsible, on examining the application for international behalf of the European Union, for protection. examining the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease 12 months after the date on which the irregular border crossing took place.

Or. it

Justification

It must be made clear that action by the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection forms part of the common European asylum system and is therefore taken in the general interest of the entire European Union . The reference to the 12-month period regarding the responsibility of the Member State is in line with the current text.

Amendment 590 József Nagy, Richard Sulík, Tomáš Zdechovský

Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where it is established, on the basis of Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as proof or circumstantial evidence as PE602.908v01-00 42/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN described in the two lists mentioned in described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member come directly from a third country, the State thus entered shall be responsible for Member State thus entered shall be examining the application for international responsible for examining the application protection. for international protection. That responsibility shall cease 12 months after the date on which the irregular border crossing took place

Or. en

Amendment 591 Sergei Stanishev

Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where it is established, on the basis of Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international examining the application for international protection. protection. That responsibility shall cease 24 months after the date on which the irregular border crossing took place.

Or. en

Justification

The permanent responsibility for applicants' asylum claims puts disproportionate responsibility to frontline Member States attached to their geographic position. The current Proposal could also lead to less compliance with the regulation as it may be perceived as an incentive by some Member States for disregarding its principles. AM\1122581EN.docx 43/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Amendment 592 Emil Radev, Mariya Gabriel

Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where it is established, on the basis of Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a entered the Union by land, sea or air, the Member State by land, sea or air having Member State of the applicant's first come from a third country, the Member application for international protection State thus entered shall be responsible for shall be responsible for examining the examining the application for application. international protection.

Or. en

Justification

The current system where the Member State of first entry is responsible for examining the application for international protection is unsustainable and places excessive burden on the front-line Member States. Therefore, the system has to be changed so that the burden of examining the applications for international protection is spread among all Member States.

Amendment 593 József Nagy, Richard Sulík, Anna Záborská, Tomáš Zdechovský

Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. When a Member State cannot or can no longer be held responsible in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4), that the applicant — who has entered the territories of the Member

PE602.908v01-00 44/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN States irregularly or whose circumstances of entry cannot be established — has been living for a continuous period of at least five months in a Member State before lodging the application for international protection, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. If the applicant has been living for periods of time of at least five months in several Member States, the Member State where he or she has been living most recently shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.

Or. en

Amendment 594 Juan Fernando López Aguilar

Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

When a Member State cannot or can no longer be held responsible in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 22(3), that the applicant — who has entered the territories of the Member States irregularly or whose circumstances of entry cannot be established — has been living for a continuous period of at least five months in a Member State before lodging the application for international protection, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. If the applicant has been living for periods of time of at least five months in several Member States, the Member State where he or she has been living most recently shall be responsible for examining the application for AM\1122581EN.docx 45/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN international protection.

Or. en

Amendment 595 Salvatore Domenico Pogliese

Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. it

Justification

In line with the current text.

Amendment 596 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Miriam Dalli, Péter Niedermüller

PE602.908v01-00 46/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence, that an applicant has crossed the border into the Member State where the application was lodged having come through another Member State, the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection shall be determined in accordance with the procedure in Article 24a.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur supports the system proposed by the rapporteur, but aligns it to the deletion of the first country of entry criterion.

Amendment 597 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 15 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 15 a Fallback criterion 1. If the conditions laid down in Articles 10a to 14a are not met, the determining State shall consult the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) in order to identify the Member States with the lowest number of applicants in proportion to their share of the fair distribution. 2. Applicants shall choose the Member State responsible among the 5 Member States with the lowest number of applicants in proportion to their share of the fair distribution at the moment when the determining State consulted the automated system. AM\1122581EN.docx 47/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter VII.

Amendment 598 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 16

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 16 deleted Visa waived entry If a third-country national or a stateless person enters into the territory of a Member State in which the need for him or her to have a visa is waived, that Member State shall be responsible for examining his or her application for international protection.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter VII.

Amendment 599 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The principle set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply if the third-country national or the stateless person lodges his or her application for international protection in another Member State in which the need for him or her to have a visa for entry into the territory is also waived. In that case, that other Member State shall be PE602.908v01-00 48/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN responsible for examining the application for international protection.

Or. en

Justification

Visa- free third country nationals enter into the territory of the MSs legally. The MS of entry exhausts its obligation by verifying that the requirements of art. 6 of Reg.399/2016 (Schengen Borders Code) are fulfilled. Therefore, it cannot be held “responsible" if the person concerned, after entering into different MS legally and probably staying there for long periods, lodges an application for international protection in another MS. In these cases the MS in which the application was lodged should be the responsible to examine it.

Amendment 600 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 17

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 17 deleted Application in an international transit area of an airport Where the application for international protection is made in the international transit area of an airport of a Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter VII.

Amendment 601 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Miriam Dalli, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation

AM\1122581EN.docx 49/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Article 17 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where the application for international Where the application for international protection is made in the international protection is made in the international transit area of an airport of a Member State transit area of an airport of a Member State by a third-country national or a stateless by a third-country national or a stateless person, that Member State shall be person, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application. determining the Member State responsible for examining the application according to the criteria set out in Chapter III, IV and VII..

Or. en

Justification

This amendment intends to align the text to the centralised system proposed by the shadow rapporteur.

Amendment 602 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Miriam Dalli, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 17 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 17 a Centralised allocation mechanism When it is not possible to determine a Member State responsible according to the previous criteria under Chapters III and Articles 18, 18a and 19 do not apply, the Member State responsible shall be determined with the allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation.

Or. en

Justification

In order to be coherent with the Resolution on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration approved by the Parliament in April 2016, and

PE602.908v01-00 50/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN with the Resolution on migration and refugees in Europe approved in September 2015, the shadow rapporteur is proposing a centralised, permanent and automatic mechanism of fair distribution of responsibilities among Member States.

Amendment 603 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Dietmar Köster, Kati Piri, Marju Lauristin, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Where, on account of pregnancy, a 1. Where, on account of pregnancy, a new-born child, serious illness, severe new-born child, serious illness, severe disability or old age, an applicant is disability or old age, an applicant is dependent on the assistance of his or her dependent on the assistance of his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States, or his or her one of the Member States, or his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States is dependent on one of the Member States is dependent on the assistance of the applicant, Member the assistance of the applicant, Member States shall normally keep or bring States shall normally keep or bring together the applicant with that child, together the applicant with that child, sibling or parent, provided that family ties sibling or parent, provided that family ties existed in the country of origin, that the existed before the applicant arrived on the child, sibling or parent or the applicant is territory of the Member States, that the able to take care of the dependent person child, sibling or parent or the applicant is and that the persons concerned expressed able to take care of the dependent person their desire in writing. and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing. When the applicant is affected by a serious disease or inability and it is not possible to determine a Member State responsible according to the criteria set out in Chapters III and IV of this regulation, Member States shall normally keep the applicant on the territory of the Member State in which the applicant is present, if the person concerned expressed his desire in writing.

Or. en

AM\1122581EN.docx 51/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Justification

The amendments seeks to align the text to the extension of the family members definition as proposed by the EC.

Amendment 604 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Where, on account of pregnancy, a 1. Where, on account of pregnancy, a new-born child, serious illness, severe new-born child, serious illness, severe disability or old age, an applicant is disability, severe trauma or old age, an dependent on the assistance of his or her applicant is dependent on the assistance of child, sibling or parent legally resident in his or her child, sibling or parent legally one of the Member States, or his or her resident in one of the Member States, or his child, sibling or parent legally resident in or her child, sibling or parent legally one of the Member States is dependent on resident in one of the Member States is the assistance of the applicant, Member dependent on the assistance of the States shall normally keep or bring applicant, Member States shall normally together the applicant with that child, keep or bring together the applicant with sibling or parent, provided that family ties that child, sibling or parent, insofar as the existed in the country of origin, that the family ties already existed before the child, sibling or parent or the applicant is applicant arrived on the territory of the able to take care of the dependent person Member States, that the child, sibling or and that the persons concerned expressed parent or the applicant is able to take care their desire in writing. of the dependent person and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt an implementing act laying down the rules and the procedural steps on how to establish the dependency link.

Or. en

Justification

Families that have been formed on the way to Europe have to equally be included in the definition of family ties.

Amendment 605 Kostas Chrysogonos, Sofia Sakorafa, Kostadinka Kuneva, Stelios Kouloglou, Dimitrios Papadimoulis

PE602.908v01-00 52/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Where, on account of pregnancy, a 1. Where, on account of pregnancy, a new-born child, serious illness, severe new-born child, serious illness, severe disability or old age, an applicant is disability, severe trauma or old age, an dependent on the assistance of his or her applicant is dependent on the assistance of child, sibling or parent legally resident in his or her child, sibling or parent legally one of the Member States, or his or her resident in one of the Member States, or his child, sibling or parent legally resident in or her child, sibling or parent legally one of the Member States is dependent on resident in one of the Member States is the assistance of the applicant, Member dependent on the assistance of the States shall normally keep or bring applicant, Member States shall normally together the applicant with that child, keep or bring together the applicant with sibling or parent, provided that family ties that child, sibling or parent, insofar as the existed in the country of origin, that the family ties already existed before the child, sibling or parent or the applicant is applicant arrived on the territory of the able to take care of the dependent person Member States, that the child, sibling or and that the persons concerned expressed parent or the applicant is able to take care their desire in writing. of the dependent person and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.

Or. en

Justification

A severe trauma of an applicant can be in fact an additional reason, which can establish his dependency on the assistance of his or her child, sibling or parent. Furthermore, it is in favour of the applicant in need not to restrict the existed family ties only to his country of origin.

Amendment 606 Elly Schlein, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Péter Niedermüller, Claude Moraes

Proposal for a regulation Article 18 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 18 a Sponsorship 1. European citizen or third country

AM\1122581EN.docx 53/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN national legally residing in a Member State for a period of at least one year, or an organisation, association or firm, that respect specific requirements set out in the delegated act referred to in paragraph 3, have the possibility to become the sponsor of an applicant for international protection who lodged an application in the EU. The individual or organisation sponsoring an applicant should provide for his or her transfer and his or her stay in the Member State where the sponsor resides, until the final decision on his or her application is adopted. 2. On the basis of a written request by the sponsor, with the acceptance of the applicant, the determining Member State shall notify it to the Member State where the sponsor resides. If the Member State accepts to take charge of the applicant, it shall become the Member State responsible, and the application should be counted within its reference number as defined in Article 35. 3. A delegated act adopted according to the procedure described in Article 57, paragraph 2, shall determine the formalities and the eligibility requirements to be satisfied by a sponsor and the other necessary implementing measures.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur believes that giving to private individuals or organisations, associations or firms, that respect certain requirements, the possibility to sponsor an applicant and take care of him or her until the final decision on the application, would help not only the prospects of a good integration in the receiving society, but also, on the model of what is happening in other countries (such as Canada), would be o strong incentive to welcome applicants in a Member State, since the application will count within its reference number (reducing the number of applicants that might be automatically allocated to that Member State), while relieving the budget from substantial part of the costs of reception (since the applicant, who would benefit fully of the condition of asylum seeker, would be hosted by the sponsor).

Amendment 607 PE602.908v01-00 54/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini, Ska Keller on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 18 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 18 a Private Sponsorship 1. Where an applicant is sponsored by a person legally residing in one of the Member States, the Member State of residence of the sponsor will be the responsible Member State, provided that the sponsor is able to take care of the dependent person and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing. 2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 57 concerning the elements to be taken into account in order to determine the criteria for assessing the capacity of the sponsor concerned to take care of the dependent person. 3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information between Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed to maintain the logic of the text as it should serve to enhance the system's capacity to determine efficiently and effectively a single Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection and to prevent secondary movements through improved opportunities for long-term integration of applicants, as the European Commission highlights in its explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Regulation. This amendment is inextricably linked to the admissible amendments under the draft report ensuring that the internal logic of the text, aimed at increasing applicants' integration prospects and decreasing “secondary movements” is maintained.

AM\1122581EN.docx 55/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Amendment 608 Kristina Winberg, Beatrix von Storch

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. By way of derogation from Article deleted 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. The Member State which decides to examine an application for international protection pursuant to this paragraph shall become the Member State responsible and shall assume the obligations associated with that responsibility. Where applicable, it shall inform the Member State previously responsible, the Member State conducting a procedure for determining the Member State responsible or the Member State which has been requested to take charge of the applicant. The Member State which becomes responsible pursuant to this paragraph shall forthwith indicate it in Eurodac in accordance with Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] by adding the date when the decision to examine the application was taken.

Or. en

Justification

Limiting a member state´s right to voluntarily accept migrants before a determination of the responsibility is carried out, in order to protect the citizens of that member state (MS) from

PE602.908v01-00 56/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN activism by the responsible authority. If a MS for some reason starts voluntarily accepting migrants at a high frequency, asylum shopping will become a factor once again.

Amendment 609 Daniel Dalton, Helga Stevens, Branislav Škripek

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

By way of derogation from Article 3(1) By way of derogation from Article 3(1), and only as long as no Member State has each Member State may decide to examine been determined as responsible , each an application for international protection Member State may decide to examine an lodged with it by a third-country national application for international protection or a stateless person based on family lodged with it by a third-country national grounds in relation to wider family not or a stateless person based on family covered by Article 2(g) , even if such grounds in relation to wider family not examination is not its responsibility under covered by Article 2(g) , even if such the criteria laid down in this Regulation. examination is not its responsibility under By way of Derogation from Article 3(1) a the criteria laid down in this Regulation. Member State may, with the agreement of the Member States already determined responsible, examine the application for international protection lodged by a third- country national or stateless person based on a formal request, in writing, from the applicant.

Or. en

Justification

A system by which Member States volunteer to take people rather than are forced to do so, is more likely to be successful and so refugees are more likely to stay and feel welcomed rather than attempting to move on to another Member State . Therefore it makes sense that under the agreement of the Member States they have been sent to (but want to leave), and the agreement of another Member State they wish to go to, that they could be transferred there instead. This could happen once only, but would give them another opportunity to try and settle well in the EU. At the same time the opportunity to move from the Member State of allocation to the Member State of choice should only happen after the applicant has been allocated to a responsible Member State. Allowing applicants to choose a destination Member State at the start of the process risks giving applicants and those considering taking the risky journey across the Mediterranean to Europe the false impression that they will be able to choose their destination country. This could encourage more people to risk their lives to reach Europe's shores.

AM\1122581EN.docx 57/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Amendment 610 Laura Ferrara, Ignazio Corrao, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Rosa D'Amato, David Borrelli, Marco Zullo, Marco Valli, Daniela Aiuto, Eleonora Evi, Piernicola Pedicini, Isabella Adinolfi, Dario Tamburrano, Laura Agea, Tiziana Beghin

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. it

Justification

Necessary to ensure consistency with previous amendments presented during preparation of the recast text.

Amendment 611 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE602.908v01-00 58/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Or. en

Justification

The provision of art 17 in the current Dublin Regulation should remain in place. MSs should be free to exercise their prerogative right to examine any application for international protection.

Amendment 612 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

By way of derogation from Article 3(1) By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has each Member State may decide to examine been determined as responsible , each an application for international protection Member State may decide to examine an lodged with it by a third-country national application for international protection or a stateless person , even if such lodged with it by a third-country national examination is not its responsibility under or a stateless person based on family the criteria laid down in this Regulation. 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.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur suggests to revert back to the wording in Dublin III, to avoid limiting the discretionary clause. If a Member State is willing to take more responsibility than it ought to, it should be able to do it.

Amendment 613 József Nagy, Anna Záborská, Tomáš Zdechovský, Richard Sulík, Jana Žitňanská

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

By way of derogation from Article 3(1) By way of derogation from Article 3(1), and only as long as no Member State has each Member State may decide to examine AM\1122581EN.docx 59/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN been determined as responsible , each an application for international protection Member State may decide to examine an lodged with it by a third-country national application for international protection or a stateless person, even if such lodged with it by a third-country national examination is not its responsibility under or a stateless person based on family the criteria laid down in this Regulation. 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.

Or. en

Amendment 614 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini, Ska Keller on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed to maintain the logic of the text as it should serve to enhance the system's capacity to determine efficiently and effectively a single Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection and to prevent secondary movements through improved opportunities for long-term integration of applicants, as the European Commission highlights in its explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Regulation. This amendment is inextricably linked to the admissible amendments under the draft report ensuring that the internal logic of the text, aimed at increasing applicants' integration prospects and decreasing “secondary movements” is maintained.

PE602.908v01-00 60/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Amendment 615 Artis Pabriks, Tomáš Zdechovský, Traian Ungureanu, Kinga Gál, Andrea Bocskor, Pál Csáky, Brice Hortefeux, Roberts Zīle, Anders Primdahl Vistisen, Mariya Gabriel, Anna Záborská

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

By way of derogation from Article 3(1) By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family or a stateless person based on family grounds in relation to wider family not grounds , even if such examination is not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such its responsibility under the criteria laid examination is not its responsibility under down in this Regulation. the criteria laid down in this Regulation.

Or. en

Amendment 616 Monika Hohlmeier

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

By way of derogation from Article 3(1) By way of derogation from Article 3(1) and only as long as no Member State has and only as long as no Member State has been determined as responsible , each been determined as responsible , each Member State may decide to examine an Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person based on family or a stateless person based on e.g. family grounds in relation to wider family not grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g) , even if such covered by Article 2(g) , even if such examination is not its responsibility under examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation. the criteria laid down in this Regulation.

Or. en

AM\1122581EN.docx 61/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Justification

This amendment shall widen the scope for a Member State to decide whether it will take on the application on other reasons such as language skills or cultural ties.

Amendment 617 Laura Ferrara, Ignazio Corrao, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Rosa D'Amato, David Borrelli, Marco Zullo, Marco Valli, Daniela Aiuto, Eleonora Evi, Piernicola Pedicini, Isabella Adinolfi, Dario Tamburrano, Laura Agea, Tiziana Beghin

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The Member State which decides to The Member State which decides to examine an application for international examine an application for international protection pursuant to this paragraph shall protection pursuant to this paragraph shall become the Member State responsible and become the Member State responsible and shall assume the obligations associated shall assume the obligations associated with that responsibility. Where applicable, with that responsibility. It shall inform the it shall inform the Member State Member State previously responsible, the previously responsible, the Member State Member State conducting a procedure for conducting a procedure for determining the determining the Member State responsible Member State responsible or the Member or the Member State which has been State which has been requested to take requested to take charge of the applicant. charge of the applicant.

Or. it

Justification

Necessary to ensure consistency with previous amendments presented during preparation of recast text.

Amendment 618 Daniel Dalton, Ryszard Antoni Legutko, Branislav Škripek

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1 a. It is at the discretion of the Member State to which the applicant was allocated and the Member State to which the applicant wishes to be allocated, to consider a request from an applicant and PE602.908v01-00 62/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN to apply paragraph 1.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 619 Kostas Chrysogonos, Sofia Sakorafa, Kostadinka Kuneva, Stelios Kouloglou, Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The Member State in which an application The Member State in which an application for international protection is made and for international protection is lodged and which is carrying out the process of which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible determining the Member State responsible, may, at any time before a Member State or the Member State responsible, may, at responsible has been determined , request any time before a Member State another Member State to take charge of an responsible has been determined, request applicant in order to bring together any another Member State to take charge of an family relations , even where that other applicant in order to bring together any Member State is not responsible under the family relations, on humanitarian grounds criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and based in particular on family or cultural 18. The persons concerned must express considerations even where that other their consent in writing. Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and 18. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing.

Or. en

AM\1122581EN.docx 63/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Justification

To bring together familiy relations under the proposed regulation shall be encouraged on humanitarian grounds based in particular on family or cultural considerations, as this is harmonised with the fully respect for human rights, that are enshrined in european amd in international law. In this context the presuppositions of requesting another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations shall be clear and in favor of a possible family reunification. In this regard not it shall be further clarified that not only the Member State in which an application for international protection is lodged and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible, but also the Member State responsible, may, at any time before a Member State responsible has been determined, request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations.

Amendment 620 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

The provision in the current Dublin Regulation should remain in place. MSs should be free to exercise their prerogative right to examine any application for international protection.

Amendment 621

PE602.908v01-00 64/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Laura Ferrara, Ignazio Corrao, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Rosa D'Amato, David Borrelli, Marco Zullo, Marco Valli, Daniela Aiuto, Eleonora Evi, Piernicola Pedicini, Isabella Adinolfi, Dario Tamburrano, Laura Agea, Tiziana Beghin

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The Member State in which an application The Member State in which an application for international protection is made and for international protection is made and which is carrying out the process of which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible determining the Member State responsible, may, at any time before a Member State or the Member State responsible, may, at responsible has been determined , request any time before a decision regarding the another Member State to take charge of an substance is taken, request another applicant in order to bring together any Member State to take charge of an family relations , even where that other applicant in order to bring together any Member State is not responsible under the family relations, on humanitarian grounds criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and , even where that other Member State is not 18. The persons concerned must express responsible under the criteria laid down in their consent in writing. Articles 10 to 13 and 18. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing.

Or. it

Justification

Necessary to ensure consistency with previous amendments presented during preparation of recast text.

Amendment 622 Maria Grapini

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2a. Applicants for international protection shall not be entitled to ask Member States to apply the sovereignty clause. Application of the sovereignty clause is the exclusive power of the Member States, which must unilaterally examine and decide on the factors instrumental in the application of that clause. It is the task of a Member State to

AM\1122581EN.docx 65/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN verify the existence of any elements instrumental in determining the Member State responsible.

Or. ro

Amendment 623 Laura Ferrara, Ignazio Corrao, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Rosa D'Amato, David Borrelli, Marco Zullo, Marco Valli, Daniela Aiuto, Eleonora Evi, Piernicola Pedicini, Isabella Adinolfi, Dario Tamburrano, Laura Agea, Tiziana Beghin

Proposal for a regulation Article 19 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 19a Cessation of responsibilities 1. Where a Member State issues a residence document to the applicant, the obligations specified in Article 20(1) shall be transferred to that Member State. 2. The obligations specified in Article 20(1) shall cease where the Member State responsible can establish, when requested to take charge or take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c) or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member States for at least three months, unless the person concerned is in possession of a valid residence document issued by the Member State responsible. An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the first subparagraph shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible. 3. The obligations specified in Article 20 (1)(c) and (d) shall cease where the Member State responsible can establish, when requested to take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20 (1)(c) or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member States in compliance with a return decision or PE602.908v01-00 66/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN removal order issued following the withdrawal or rejection of the application. An application lodged after an effective removal has taken place shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.

Or. it

Justification

Necessary to ensure consistency with previous amendments presented during preparation of recast text.

Amendment 624 Emil Radev, Mariya Gabriel

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

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) take back, under the conditions deleted 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;

Or. en

Justification

Member States cannot be forced to take back people who have left their territory especially if they have spent more than three months out of that Member State.

Amendment 625 Emil Radev, Mariya Gabriel

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

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) take back, under the conditions deleted AM\1122581EN.docx 67/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN 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;

Or. en

Justification

Member States cannot be forced to take back people who have left their territory especially if they have spent more than three months out of that Member State. Any references to this deleted paragraph should be adapted accordingly throughout the text.

Amendment 626 Filiz Hyusmenova

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

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) take back, under the conditions deleted 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;

Or. en

Justification

This text is deleted as a new concept is proposed with an amendment introducing Art. 20, paragraph 1, point e a (new)

Amendment 627 Emil Radev, Mariya Gabriel

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

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE602.908v01-00 68/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN (d) take back, under the conditions deleted 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;

Or. en

Justification

Member States that have rejected the application for international protection should not be forever responsible for those applicants. Such persons should be returned to their country of origin, not to the Member State that reviewed their application for international protection, as soon as possible. Any references to this deleted paragraph should be adapted accordingly throughout the text.

Amendment 628 Filiz Hyusmenova

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

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(d) take back, under the conditions deleted 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;

Or. en

Justification

This text is deleted as a new concept is proposed with an amendment introducing Art. 20, paragraph 1, point e a (new)

Amendment 629 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation

AM\1122581EN.docx 69/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

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

Or. en

Justification

To be clarified that it refers only to the first instance decisions.

Amendment 630 Miltiadis Kyrkos

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

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

To be clarified that it refers only to the first instance decisions.

Amendment 631 Emil Radev, Mariya Gabriel

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

PE602.908v01-00 70/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(e) take back, under the conditions deleted 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.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 632 József Nagy, Anna Záborská, Tomáš Zdechovský, Richard Sulík

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

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 633 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Péter Niedermüller

AM\1122581EN.docx 71/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(e) take back, under the conditions (e) if a beneficiary of international laid down in Articles 26 and 30 a protection makes an application in another beneficiary of international protection, who Member State than the Member State made an application in another Member responsible which granted that protection State than the Member State responsible status or who is on the territory of another which granted that protection status or who Member State than the Member State is on the territory of another Member State responsible which granted that protection than the Member State responsible which without a residence document, the Member granted that protection without a residence State where he or she made the document. application should recognize its status of beneficiary of international protection granted by the other Member State.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur has always advocated for the mutual recognition of refugee status among Member States, therefore she could not support the wording proposed by the EC.

Amendment 634 Filiz Hyusmenova

Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(e a) A third country national or a stateless person whose application has been rejected, or who has withdrawn the application under examination, and has left or was removed from the territory of the responsible Member State as a result of a return decision or a removal order, who has made an application later in another Member State, shall be removed from the territories of the Member States without initializing a take back procedure under Art. 26 and Art. 30.

Or. en

PE602.908v01-00 72/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Justification

In cases where a Member State has duly performed its asylum procedure obligations, an application was examined on its merits, received a refusal and the applicant was removed from the MS due to lack of legal basis for staying, it is unreasonable that this MS will again be responsible for the same applicant if he tries to play with the system by applying elsewhere. In view of streamlining the system such applicant should be directly removed from any subsequent Member State, instead of being taken back to the first (responsible) Member State over and over again, which distorts the procedure and increases the costs by performing a take back, for the reason of, again, performing a removal.

Amendment 635 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. In a situation referred to in point (a) 2. In a situation referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1, the Member State or (b) of paragraph 1, the Member State responsible shall examine or complete the responsible shall examine or complete the examination of the application for examination of the application for international protection. international protection.

Or. en

Amendment 636 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. In a situation referred to in point deleted (b) of paragraph 1, the Member State responsible shall examine or complete the examination of the application for international protection in an accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 31 paragraph 8 of Directive 2013/32/EU.

Or. en AM\1122581EN.docx 73/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Amendment 637 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 638 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. In a situation referred to in point deleted (c) of paragraph 1, the Member State responsible shall treat any further representations or a new application by the applicant as subsequent application in accordance with Directive 2013/32/EU.

Or. en

Amendment 639 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 4 PE602.908v01-00 74/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. In a situation referred to in point 4. In the cases falling within the (c) of paragraph 1, the Member State scope of paragraph 1(c), when the Member responsible shall treat any further State responsible had discontinued the representations or a new application by examination of an application following the applicant as subsequent application in its withdrawal by the applicant before a accordance with Directive 2013/32/EU. decision on the substance has been taken at first instance, that Member State shall ensure that the applicant is entitled to request that the examination of his or her application be completed or to lodge a new application for international protection, which shall not be treated as a subsequent application as provided for in Directive 2013/32/EU. In such cases, Member States shall ensure that the examination of the application is completed.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur fully supports the amendment proposed by the rapporteur to revert back to the wording of Dublin III.

Amendment 640 Emil Radev, Mariya Gabriel

Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. In a situation referred to in point deleted (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.

Or. en

Amendment 641

AM\1122581EN.docx 75/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Péter Niedermüller, Kati Piri, Dietmar Köster

Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. In a situation referred to in point (d) 5. In a situation referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1, the decision taken by the of paragraph 1, where the applicant has responsible authority of the Member State been rejected at first instance only, the responsible to reject the application shall Member State responsible shall ensure no longer be subject to a remedy within that the person concerned has or has had the framework of Chapter V of Directive the opportunity to seek an effective 2013/32/EU. remedy pursuant to Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur fully supports the amendment proposed by the rapporteur to revert back to the wording of Dublin III.

Amendment 642 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. In a situation referred to in point (d) 5. In a situation referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1, the decision taken by the of paragraph 1, the decision taken by the responsible authority of the Member State responsible authority of the Member State responsible to reject the application shall responsible to reject the application shall no longer be subject to a remedy within be subject to a remedy within the the framework of Chapter V of Directive framework of Chapter V of Directive 2013/32/EU. 2013/32/EU.

Or. en

Amendment 643 József Nagy, Anna Záborská, Richard Sulík, Tomáš Zdechovský, Jana Žitňanská

PE602.908v01-00 76/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The Member State responsible shall deleted indicate in the electronic file referred to in Article 22(2) the fact that it is the Member State responsible.

Or. en

Amendment 644 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 20 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 20 a Cessation of responsibilities 1. Where a Member State issues a residence document to the applicant, the obligations specified in Article 20(1) shall be transferred to that Member State. 2. The obligations specified in Article 20(1) shall cease where the Member State responsible can establish, when requested to take charge or take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c) or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member States for at least three months, unless the person concerned is in possession of a valid residence document issued by the Member State responsible. An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the first subparagraph shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible. 3. The obligations specified in Article 20(1)(c) and (d) shall cease where the AM\1122581EN.docx 77/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Member State responsible can establish, when requested to take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c) or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member States in compliance with a return decision or removal order issued following the withdrawal or rejection of the application. An application lodged after an effective removal has taken place shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur suggests to keep the cessation of responsibilities clause of Dublin III, because she doesn´t support the principle of permanent responsibility as proposed by the EC.

Amendment 645 Emil Radev, Mariya Gabriel

Proposal for a regulation Article 20 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

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.

PE602.908v01-00 78/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Or. en

Justification

No Member State can become forever responsible for a person who applies for international protection on recurring basis.

Amendment 646 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The process of determining the 1. The process of determining the Member State responsible shall start as Member State responsible shall start as soon as an application for international soon as an application for international protection is first lodged with a Member protection is first lodged with a Member State , provided that the Member State of State. first application is not already the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(4) or (5) .

Or. en

Amendment 647 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The process of determining the 1. The process of determining the Member State responsible shall start as Member State responsible shall start as soon as an application for international soon as an application for international protection is first lodged with a Member protection is registered with a Member State , provided that the Member State of State , provided that the Member State of first application is not already the Member first application is not already the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(4) State responsible pursuant to Article 3(5) . or (5) .

Or. en

AM\1122581EN.docx 79/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Justification

Amendment 648 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. An application for international deleted protection shall be deemed to have been lodged once a form submitted by the applicant or a report prepared by the authorities has reached the competent authorities of the Member State concerned. Where an application is not made in writing, the time elapsing between the statement of intention and the preparation of a report should be as short as possible.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 649 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini

PE602.908v01-00 80/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where an application for international Where an application for international protection is lodged with the competent protection is registered with the competent authorities of a Member State by an authorities of a Member State by an applicant who is on the territory of another applicant who is on the territory of another Member State, the determination of the Member State, the determination of the Member State responsible shall be made by Member State responsible shall be made by the Member State in whose territory the the Member State in whose territory the applicant is present. The latter Member applicant is present. The latter Member State shall be informed without delay by State shall be informed without delay by the Member State which received the the Member State which received the application and shall then, for the purposes application and shall then, for the purposes of this Regulation, be regarded as the of this Regulation, be regarded as the Member State with which the application Member State with which the application for international protection was lodged. for international protection was registered.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 650 Emil Radev, Mariya Gabriel

Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. An applicant who is present in deleted 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

AM\1122581EN.docx 81/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN 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.

Or. en

Justification

Member States cannot be forced to take back applicants who have left their territory especially if the applicants have spent more than three months out of that Member State.

Amendment 651 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. An applicant who is present in 5. An applicant who is present in another Member State without a residence another Member State without a residence document or who there lodges an document or who there lodges an application for international protection application for international protection after withdrawing his or her first after withdrawing his or her first application made in a different Member application made in a different Member State during the process of determining the State during the process of determining the Member State responsible shall be taken Member State responsible shall be taken back, under the conditions laid down in back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, by the Member State Articles 26 and 30, by the Member State with which that application for with which that application for international protection was first lodged. international protection was first lodged, with a view to completing the process of determining the Member State responsible. That obligation shall cease where the Member State requested to complete the process of determining the Member State responsible can establish that the applicant has in the meantime left the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months or has obtained a residence document from another Member State. PE602.908v01-00 82/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the second subparagraph shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.

Or. en

Justification

The amendment is in line with the reintroduction of the cessation of responsibilities clause proposed by the shadow rapporteur.

Amendment 652 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

That obligation shall cease where the Member State responsible can establish that the applicant has in the meantime left the territory of the Member State for a period of three months or has obtained a residence document from another Member State. An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the first subparagraph shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.

Or. en

Justification

This reinstates the former Article 20(5), subparagraphs 2 and three that the Commission proposes to delete.

Amendment 654 József Nagy, Richard Sulík, Tomáš Zdechovský, Jana Žitňanská

Proposal for a regulation Article 22

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 22 deleted Registration 1. The Member State with which an application for international protection is lodged shall enter in the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) within the period referred to in Article 10 (1) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation PE602.908v01-00 84/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN recasting Regulation (EU) 603/2013] that: (a) such application is lodged; (b) where applicable, links to the applications of family members or relatives travelling together; (c) the reference number referred to in Article 12 (i) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]. 2. Upon entry of the information pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44 shall register each application under a unique application number, create an electronic file for each application and communicate the unique application number to the Member State of application. 3. Member States shall provide the European Union Agency for Asylum with information on the number of third country nationals effectively resettled on a weekly basis. The Agency shall validate this information and enter the data in the automated system. 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. 5. The Member State with which the application is lodged shall search the VIS pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 767/2008. Where a hit in the VIS indicates that the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application, the Member State shall indicate the visa application number and the Member State, the authority of which issued or extended the visa and whether the visa has been issued on behalf of another Member State.

AM\1122581EN.docx 85/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Or. en

Amendment 655 Artis Pabriks, Tomáš Zdechovský, Traian Ungureanu, Kinga Gál, Andrea Bocskor, Pál Csáky, Brice Hortefeux, Roberts Zīle, Anders Primdahl Vistisen, Anna Záborská

Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The Member State with which an 1. The Member State with which an application for international protection is application for international protection is lodged shall enter in the automated system lodged shall enter in the system referred to referred to in Article 44(1) within the in Article 44(1) within the period referred period referred to in Article 10 (1) of to in Article 10 (1) of Regulation [Proposal Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) recasting Regulation (EU) 603/2013] that: 603/2013] that:

Or. en

Justification

In line with the deletion of Chapter VII.

Amendment 656 Sylvie Guillaume

Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) where applicable, links to the (b) where applicable, links to the applications of family members or applications of family members, relatives relatives travelling together; or groups of applicants requesting to be registered as travelling together; without prejudice to the right of individual examination of each application and with particular attention to avoid drifts especially for asylum seekers expressing intra-familial fears.

Or. en

Amendment 657 PE602.908v01-00 86/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Upon entry of the information 2. Upon entry of the information pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in Article 44 shall system referred to in Article 44 shall register each application under a unique register each application under a unique application number, create an electronic application number, create an electronic file for each application and communicate file for each application and communicate the unique application number to the the unique application number to the Member State of application. Member State of application. The personal data contained in the unique application number as well as the electronic file shall only be used for the purposes of this Regulation and of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013].

Or. en

Justification

Based on EDPS comments. The use of a unique identifier for each applicant's file requires specific safeguards, because it makes it easier to check one individual in several databases, also outside the domain of asylum, and may also allow the profiling a person on the basis of his or her unique identifier. To prevent misuse of data, the use of a unique identifier must be limited to specific purposes, to a specific context and to a particular environment, in line with the purpose limitation principle.

Amendment 658 Artis Pabriks, Tomáš Zdechovský, Traian Ungureanu, Kinga Gál, Andrea Bocskor, Pál Csáky, Brice Hortefeux, Roberts Zīle, Anders Primdahl Vistisen, Anna Záborská

Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Upon entry of the information 2. Upon entry of the information pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated pursuant to paragraph 1, the system system referred to in Article 44 shall referred to in Article 44 shall register each register each application under a unique application under a unique application application number, create an electronic number, create an electronic file for each file for each application and communicate application and communicate the unique

AM\1122581EN.docx 87/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN the unique application number to the application number to the Member State of Member State of application. application.

Or. en

Justification

In line with the deletion of Chapter VII.

Amendment 659 Artis Pabriks, Tomáš Zdechovský, Traian Ungureanu, Kinga Gál, Andrea Bocskor, Pál Csáky, Brice Hortefeux, Roberts Zīle, Anders Primdahl Vistisen, Anna Záborská

Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Member States shall provide the 3. Member States shall provide the European Union Agency for Asylum with European Union Agency for Asylum with information on the number of third country information on the number of third country nationals effectively resettled on a weekly nationals effectively resettled on a weekly basis. The Agency shall validate this basis. The Agency shall validate this information and enter the data in the information and enter the data in the automated system. system.

Or. en

Justification

In line with the deletion of Chapter VII.

Amendment 660 Emil Radev, Mariya Gabriel

Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Where a hit in Eurodac indicates deleted 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 PE602.908v01-00 88/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Member State responsible for examining the previous application.

Or. en

Justification

Member States cannot be forced to take back applicants who have left their territory especially if the applicants have spent more than three months out of the territory of that Member State. The amendment should apply to all subsequent references to the paragraph.

Amendment 661 Miltiadis Kyrkos

Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. The Member State with which the 5. The Member State with which the application is lodged shall search the VIS application is lodged shall search the VIS pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 767/2008. Where a hit in the VIS indicates 767/2008. Where a hit in the VIS indicates that the applicant is in possession of a valid that the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months visa before lodging the first application, the before lodging the first application, the Member State shall indicate the visa Member State shall indicate the visa application number and the Member State, application number and the Member State, the authority of which issued or extended the authority of which issued or extended the visa and whether the visa has been the visa and whether the visa has been issued on behalf of another Member State. issued on behalf of another Member State.

Or. en

Justification

The responsibility of the member state which has issued a visa to the applicant should not be ceased after six months of the issuing of the visa.

Amendment 662 Kostas Chrysogonos, Sofia Sakorafa, Kostadinka Kuneva, Stelios Kouloglou, Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1122581EN.docx 89/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN 5. The Member State with which the 5. The Member State with which the application is lodged shall search the VIS application is lodged shall search the VIS pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 767/2008. Where a hit in the VIS indicates 767/2008. Where a hit in the VIS indicates that the applicant is in possession of a valid that the applicant is in possession of a valid visa or a visa expired less than six months visa before lodging the first application, the before lodging the first application, the Member State shall indicate the visa Member State shall indicate the visa application number and the Member State, application number and the Member State, the authority of which issued or extended the authority of which issued or extended the visa and whether the visa has been the visa and whether the visa has been issued on behalf of another Member State. issued on behalf of another Member State.

Or. en

Justification

The applicant shall be in possession of a valid and not an expired visa mainly for reasons of legal certainty.

Amendment 663 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

The responsibility of the MS which has issued a visa to the applicant should not be ceased after six months of the issuing of the visa.

PE602.908v01-00 90/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Amendment 664 Mariya Gabriel, Emil Radev

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

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

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.

Or. en

Amendment 665 József Nagy, Richard Sulík, Jana Žitňanská, Artis Pabriks

Proposal for a regulation Article 23

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 23 deleted Information in the automated system 1. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate in real time: (a) the total number of applications lodged in the Union; (b) the actual number of applications lodged in each Member State; (c) the number of third country nationals resettled by each Member State; (d) the actual number of applications to be examined by each Member State as Member State responsible; (e) the share of each Member State pursuant to the reference key referred to in Article 35. 2. In the electronic file referred to in Article 22(2) only the following information shall be recorded:

AM\1122581EN.docx 91/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN (a) the unique application number referred to in Article 22(2): (b) link to applications referred to in point b of Article 22 (1) and 22(4); (c) the reference number referred to in point d of Article 12(i) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]; (d) the existence of an alert following the security verification pursuant to Article 40; (e) the Member State responsible; (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; (g) in case of the indication of a visa issued to the applicant pursuant to Article 22(5), the Member State which issued or extended the visa or on behalf of which the visa has been issued and the visa application number; (h) where the allocation mechanism under Chapter VII applies, the information referred to in Article 36(4) and point (h) of Article 39. 3. Upon communication by the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 20(7) and Article 22(3) the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count that application and that third country national effectively resettled for the share of that Member State. 4. The electronic files shall be automatically erased after expiry of the period set out in Article 17(1) of Regulation [Proposal for Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013].

Or. en

Amendment 666 Artis Pabriks, Tomáš Zdechovský, Traian Ungureanu, Kinga Gál, Andrea Bocskor, Pál Csáky, Brice Hortefeux, Roberts Zīle, Anders Primdahl Vistisen, Anna Záborská PE602.908v01-00 92/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Information in the automated system Information system

Or. en

Justification

In line with the deletion of Section VII.

Amendment 667 Artis Pabriks, Tomáš Zdechovský, Traian Ungureanu, Kinga Gál, Andrea Bocskor, Pál Csáky, Brice Hortefeux, Roberts Zīle, Anders Primdahl Vistisen, Anna Záborská

Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The automated system referred to 1. The system referred to in Article in Article 44(1) shall indicate in real time: 44(1) shall indicate in real time:

Or. en

Justification

In line with the deletion of Chapter VII.

Amendment 668 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The automated system referred to in 1. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate in real time: Article 44(1) shall indicate:

Or. en

AM\1122581EN.docx 93/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Amendment 669 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a a) the total number of successful applications in the Union;

Or. en

Amendment 670 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a b) the actual number of successful applications lodged in each Member State;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed to maintain the logic of the text as it should serve to enhance the system's capacity to determine efficiently and effectively a single Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection and to prevent secondary movements through improved opportunities for long-term integration of applicants, as the European Commission highlights in its explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed recast Regulation.

Amendment 671 Artis Pabriks, Tomáš Zdechovský, Traian Ungureanu, Kinga Gál, Andrea Bocskor, Pál Csáky, Brice Hortefeux, Roberts Zīle, Anders Primdahl Vistisen, Anna Záborská

Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE602.908v01-00 94/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN (c) the number of third country deleted nationals resettled by each Member State;

Or. en

Amendment 672 Artis Pabriks, Tomáš Zdechovský, Traian Ungureanu, Kinga Gál, Andrea Bocskor, Pál Csáky, Brice Hortefeux, Roberts Zīle, Anders Primdahl Vistisen, Anna Záborská

Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(e) the share of each Member State deleted pursuant to the reference key referred to in Article 35.

Or. en

Amendment 673 Emil Radev, Mariya Gabriel

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

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

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

Or. en

Justification

Given the deletion of Article 22(4), this article should be also deleted.

Amendment 674 Artis Pabriks, Tomáš Zdechovský, Traian Ungureanu, Kinga Gál, Andrea Bocskor, Pál Csáky, Brice Hortefeux, Roberts Zīle, Anders Primdahl Vistisen, Anna Záborská

AM\1122581EN.docx 95/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point h

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(h) where the allocation mechanism deleted under Chapter VII applies, the information referred to in Article 36(4) and point (h) of Article 39.

Or. en

Justification

In line with the deletion of Chapter VII.

Amendment 675 Artis Pabriks, Tomáš Zdechovský, Traian Ungureanu, Kinga Gál, Andrea Bocskor, Pál Csáky, Brice Hortefeux, Roberts Zīle, Anders Primdahl Vistisen, Anna Záborská

Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Upon communication by the deleted Member State responsible pursuant to Article 20(7) and Article 22(3) the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count that application and that third country national effectively resettled for the share of that Member State.

Or. en

Justification

In line with the deletion of Chapter VII.

Amendment 676 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE602.908v01-00 96/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Submitting a take charge request Submitting a take charge or take back request

Or. en

Justification

The take charge request only follows after the pre-Dublin check provided for in art 3 (3).

Amendment 677 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where a Member State with which an deleted application for international protection has been lodged considers that another Member State is responsible for examining the application, it shall , as quickly as possible and in any event within one month of the date on which the application was lodged within the meaning of Article 21(2), request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter III and Chapter VII.

Amendment 678 Kostas Chrysogonos, Sofia Sakorafa, Kostadinka Kuneva, Stelios Kouloglou, Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where a Member State with which an Where a Member State with which an application for international protection has application for international protection has been lodged considers that another been lodged considers that another AM\1122581EN.docx 97/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Member State is responsible for examining Member State is responsible for examining the application, it shall , as quickly as the application, it shall, as quickly as possible and in any event within one possible and in any event within three month of the date on which the application months of the date on which the was lodged within the meaning of Article application was lodged within the meaning 21(2), request that other Member State to of Article 21(2), request that other Member take charge of the applicant. State to take charge of the applicant.

Or. en

Justification

Without prejudice to the reservation in relation to the requirement of the pre-Dublin check, it is impossible for a MS to keep up with this one month deadline. Before submitting the take charge request, the member state concerned has conclude the pre-Dublin check (eventually confirm the admissibility of the application at second instance /effective remedy). This procedure can take much longer than one month, especially in periods of particular pressure.

Amendment 679 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where a Member State with which an Where a Member State with which an application for international protection has application for international protection has been lodged considers that another been lodged considers that another Member State is responsible for examining Member State is responsible for examining the application, it shall , as quickly as the application, it shall , as quickly as possible and in any event within one possible and in any event within three month of the date on which the application months of the date on which the was lodged within the meaning of Article application was lodged within the meaning 21(2), request that other Member State to of Article 21(2), request that other Member take charge of the applicant. State to take charge of the applicant.

Or. en

Justification

PE602.908v01-00 98/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Amendment 680 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The Member State with which an application for international protection has been lodged shall conduct a procedure to ascertain the occurrence of prima facie indications to determine the Member State responsible in accordance with Article 10a, 11a, 12a or 14a.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter III and Chapter VII.

Amendment 681 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Péter Niedermüller, Miriam Dalli, Kati Piri

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

If none of the criteria set out in Chapter III and IV apply, the determining Member State should determine the Member State responsible with the allocation mechanism according to the procedure laid down in Chapter VII.

Or. en

Justification

The amendment seeks to align the text to the permanent and automatic mechanism of allocation set out under Chapter VII.

Amendment 682 AM\1122581EN.docx 99/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, deleted in the case of a Eurodac hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] or of a VIS hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 767/2008 , the request shall be sent within two weeks of receiving that hit .

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter III and Chapter VII.

Amendment 683 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, in Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, in the case of a Eurodac hit with data the case of a Eurodac hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 13 of recorded pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] or recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013] or of a VIS hit with data recorded pursuant to of a VIS hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 767/2008 Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 767/2008 , the request shall be sent within two weeks , the request shall be sent within one of receiving that hit . month of receiving that hit .

Or. en

Justification

The deadline of two weeks is too short.

PE602.908v01-00 100/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Amendment 684 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where the request to take charge of an deleted applicant is not made within the periods laid down in the first and second subparagraphs, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the application was lodged.

Or. en

Justification

A MS should not be considered responsible, when it cannot respect these extremely tight deadlines.

Amendment 685 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter III and Chapter VII.

AM\1122581EN.docx 101/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Amendment 686 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller, Miriam Dalli

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where the request to take charge of an Where the request to take charge of an applicant is not made within the periods applicant is not made within the periods laid down in the first and second laid down in the first and second subparagraphs, responsibility for subparagraphs, responsibility for examining the application for international examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State protection shall be determined by the in which the application was lodged. allocation mechanism under Chapter VII.

Or. en

Justification

In order to align the proposed changes suggested by the shadow rapporteur in Chapter VII, this part needs to be amended accordingly.

Amendment 687 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

In the cases referred to in paragraph 1 , deleted the request that charge be taken by another Member State shall be made using a standard form and including proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from the applicant’s statement, enabling the authorities of the requested Member State to check whether it is responsible on the basis of the criteria laid down in this Regulation.

Or. en

PE602.908v01-00 102/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter III and Chapter VII.

Amendment 688 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The Commission shall, by means of deleted implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions on the preparation and submission of take charge requests. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter III and Chapter VII.

Amendment 689 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2 a. In establishing whether there are sufficient indications that the applicant has the relevant connections in the Member State he or she claims the determining Member State shall ensure that the applicant has understood the applicable definition of family members, of relatives and of the other meaningful links as spelled out in Article 14a. The determining State shall also ensure that the applicant is certain that the alleged family members and/or relatives are not AM\1122581EN.docx 103/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN present in another Member State.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter III and Chapter VII.

Amendment 690 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2 b. The determining Member State shall ensure that the applicant understands that he or she will not be allowed to stay in the Member State where he or she claims to have family members, relatives or other meaningful links under Article 14a, unless such a claim can be verified by that Member State. If the information provided by the applicant does not give manifest reasons to doubt the presence of family members, of relatives or of other meaningful links under Article 14a in the Member State indicated by the applicant it shall be concluded that, prima facie, there are sufficient indications that such Member State is the competent one.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter III and Chapter VII.

Amendment 691 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 c (new)

PE602.908v01-00 104/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2 c. If it is determined pursuant to paragraph 1 and 2 that a Member State is, prima facie, responsible in accordance with Article 10a, 11a, 12a or 14a, the determining Member State shall notify the Member State responsible thereof and the applicant shall be transferred to that Member State.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter III and Chapter VII.

Amendment 692 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2 d. The Member State receiving an applicant in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 3 shall make the determination of whether the conditions for establishing its responsibility in accordance with Article 10a, 11a, 12a or 14a are met. If it is determined that such conditions reunification are not met the receiving Member State shall ensure that the applicant is relocated to another Member State in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24a.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter III and Chapter VII.

Amendment 693

AM\1122581EN.docx 105/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2 e. The authorities responsible of the Member State where the applicant claims to have family members, relatives or other meaningful links, shall assist the competent authorities of the determining Member State in confirming the links to the Member State.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter III and Chapter VII.

Amendment 694 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 f (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2 f. A delegated act adopted under Article 57 shall establish a list of prima facie indications on which the presumption according to Article 24(2d) shall be based. In doing so, the delegated act shall make it clear that the absence of official documents released by the State of origin cannot be per se the sole reason for declaring not satisfied a certain requirement and that other evidence should be admitted, including statements coming from international organizations.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to my reworking of Chapter III and Chapter VII.

PE602.908v01-00 106/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Amendment 695 Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 24 a Submitting a take charge notification 1. Where an applicant is to be transferred to another Member State pursuant to Article 15(1a) or Article 36b (4) the Member State of allocation shall be determined randomly by the automated system referred to in Article 44 amongst the Member States not currently benefitting from the corrective allocation mechanism referred to in Article 34. 2. Once the Member State of allocation has been determined pursuant to paragraph 1, information to that effect shall be automatically entered into Eurodac and the Member State of allocation shall be informed by way of an automatic notification. 3. The Member State where the applicant is present shall inform the applicant of the determination pursuant to paragraph 2 and, in cooperation with the European Union Agency for Asylum, of the modalities for the transfer. 4.The Member State where the applicant is present shall ensure the swift transfer of the applicant to the Member State responsible with the assistance of the European Union Agency for Asylum t. 5. The obligations set out in Articles 39, 40, 41 and 42 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Or. en

AM\1122581EN.docx 107/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Justification

This new procedure applies in two specific cases designed as a deterrent for applicants to work against the system. It should be applied in cases where the applicant has not registered in the first member state of arrival but moved irregularly within Europe before registering (15 1a) or where the applicant has falsely declared having family in a specific member state (36b(4)) in order to benefit from the family reunification procedure. In the first instance the applicant will be deterred from irregularly moving onwards from the first Member State of arrival since he or she would not be able to make a specific Member State of choice de facto responsible for his or her application. Instead the applicant would, upon applying in a Member State that is not that of the first entry be automatically relocated to another (randomly decided) Member State. This removes the need for the procedure to return the applicant to a specific first Member State of arrival in cases where there are no registrations as it has proven impossible to prove which Member State the applicant entered through. In the second case it acts like a deterrence for the newly introduced lighter model of family reunification where an applicant would be relocated if he or she has claimed to have a family link with a specific Member State that would not prove to be legitimate on further scrutiny. The European Union Agency of Asylum should assyst and coordinate transfers related to this article, but cannot take the responsibility from the Member States, due its lack of capacities and experience in this field.

Amendment 696 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Kati Piri

Proposal for a regulation Article 24 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 24 a Submitting a take charge notification 1. Where an applicant is to be transferred to another Member State pursuant to Article 15 (1a) or Article 13a the Member State of allocation shall be determined randomly by the automated system referred to in Article 44 amongst the Member States according to Article 36c. 2. Once the Member State of allocation has been determined pursuant to paragraph 1, information to that effect shall be automatically entered into Eurodac and the Member State of allocation shall be informed by way of an automatic notification.

PE602.908v01-00 108/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN 3. The Member State where the applicant is present shall inform the applicant of the determination pursuant to paragraph 2 and, in cooperation with the European Asylum Agency, of the modalities for the transfer. 4. The European Asylum Agency shall ensure the swift transfer of the applicant from the Member State where he or she is present to the Member State responsible. 5. The obligations set out in Article 39, 40, 41 and 42 shall apply mutatis mutandis

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur supports the system proposed by the rapporteur, and aligns it with her amendments.

Amendment 697 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller, Birgit Sippel

Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The requested Member State shall 1. The requested Member State shall make the necessary checks, and shall give make the necessary checks, and shall give a decision on the request to take charge of a decision on the request to take charge of an applicant within one month of receipt of an applicant within two weeks of receipt of the request. the request.

Or. en

Justification

The amendment seeks to reasonably shorten the time of the procedure. In line with the introduction of a light family reunification procedure, a deadline of two weeks to answer to a take charge request seems sufficient.

Amendment 698 Emil Radev, Mariya Gabriel

AM\1122581EN.docx 109/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Proposal for a regulation Chapter 6 – section 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Procedures for take back notifications deleted 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).

Or. en

Justification

Member States cannot be forced to take back applicants who have left their territory especially if these applicants have spent more than three months out of the territory of that Member State. The deletion should apply to all subsequent references to the Article/Section IV.

Amendment 699 Filiz Hyusmenova

Proposal for a regulation PE602.908v01-00 110/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Chapter 6 – section 4 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Procedures for take back notifications Procedures for take back requests

Or. en

Justification

The request regime should be maintained in order to verify if a Member State is still responsible - responsibility of the Member State should be terminated in cases of withdrawal of status or return, followed by a subsequent application in another Member State. If this text is adopted the Regulation should be changed accordingly, replacing notifications by requests.

Amendment 700 Kostas Chrysogonos, Sofia Sakorafa, Kostadinka Kuneva, Stelios Kouloglou, Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Submitting a take back notification Submitting a take back request when a new application has been lodged in the requesting Member State

Or. en

Justification

A MS cannot be merely 'notified' it should be in a position to check the validity of the take back request.

Amendment 701 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Submitting a take back notification Submitting a take back request when a new application has been lodged in the requesting Member State

AM\1122581EN.docx 111/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Or. en

Justification

A MS cannot be merely 'notified' it should be in a position to check the validity of the take back request.

Amendment 702 Filiz Hyusmenova

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Submitting a take back notification Submitting a take back request

Or. en

Justification

The request regime should be maintained in order to verify if a Member State is still responsible - responsibility of the Member State is to be terminated in cases of withdrawal of status or return, followed by a subsequent application in another Member State.

Amendment 703 Kostas Chrysogonos, Kostadinka Kuneva, Stelios Kouloglou, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Sofia Sakorafa

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. In a situation referred to in Article 1. In a situation referred to in Article 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State where the person is present shall make a where the person is present shall make a take back notification at the latest within take back request at the latest within two two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit. and transfer that person to the Member State responsible .

Or. en

Justification

A MS cannot be merely 'notified' it should be in a position to check the validity of the take back request. PE602.908v01-00 112/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Amendment 704 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

A MS cannot be merely 'notified' it should be in a position to check the validity of the take back request.

Amendment 705 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. In a situation referred to in Article 1. In a situation referred to in Article 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State 20(1)(b), (c), or (d) the Member State where the person is present shall make a where the person is present shall make a take back notification at the latest within take back notification at the latest within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, and transfer that person to the Member and transfer that person to the Member State responsible . State responsible .

Or. en

Amendment 706 Filiz Hyusmenova

AM\1122581EN.docx 113/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. In a situation referred to in Article 1. In a situation referred to in Article 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State where the person is present shall make a where the person is present shall make a take back notification at the latest within take back request at the latest within two two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, and and transfer that person to the Member transfer that person to the Member State State responsible . responsible .

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 707 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1 a. Where the take back request is not made within the periods laid down in paragraph 2, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the new application was lodged.

Or. en

Justification

The amendment seeks to ensure the respect of the time deadlines set out in this Article.

Amendment 708 Kostas Chrysogonos, Sofia Sakorafa, Kostadinka Kuneva, Stelios Kouloglou, Dimitrios Papadimoulis PE602.908v01-00 114/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1 a. Where the take back request is not made within the periods laid down in paragraph 1, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the new application was lodged.

Or. en

Justification

All MSs should be bound by deadlines with relevant consequences if in case of non- compliance.

Amendment 709 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

All MSs should be bound by deadlines with relevant consequences if in case of non- compliance.

Amendment 710 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 2

AM\1122581EN.docx 115/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. A take back notification shall be 2. A take back request shall be made made using a standard form and shall using a standard form and shall include include proof or circumstantial evidence as proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from Article 25(4) and/or relevant elements from the statements of the person concerned. the statements of the person concerned enabling the authorities of the requested Member State to check whether it is responsible on the basis of the criteria laid down in this Regulation.

Or. en

Justification

A MS cannot be merely 'notified' it should be in a position to check the validity of the take back request and must have the possibility to check the circumstantial evidence.

Amendment 711 Filiz Hyusmenova

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 712 Filiz Hyusmenova

Proposal for a regulation

PE602.908v01-00 116/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Article 26 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. The Member State responsible shall 3. The Member State responsible shall confirm immediately the receipt of the confirm immediately the receipt of the notification to the Member State which request to the Member State which made made the notification. the request.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 713 Kostas Chrysogonos, Sofia Sakorafa, Kostadinka Kuneva, Stelios Kouloglou, Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

A MS cannot be merely 'notified' it should be in a position to check the validity of the take back request.

Amendment 714 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. The Member State responsible shall 3. The Member State responsible shall confirm immediately the receipt of the confirm immediately the receipt of the AM\1122581EN.docx 117/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN notification to the Member State which request to the Member State which made made the notification. the request.

Or. en

Justification

A MS cannot be merely 'notified' it should be in a position to check the validity of the take back request.

Amendment 715 Kostas Chrysogonos, Sofia Sakorafa, Kostadinka Kuneva, Stelios Kouloglou, Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. The Commission shall, by means of 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and conditions for the preparation and submission of take back notifications . submission of take back requests. Those Those implementing acts shall be adopted implementing acts shall be adopted in in accordance with the examination accordance with the examination procedure procedure referred to in Article 56(2). referred to in Article 56(2).

Or. en

Justification

A MS cannot be merely 'notified' it should be in a position to check the validity of the take back request.

Amendment 716 Filiz Hyusmenova

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. The Commission shall, by means of 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and conditions for the preparation and submission of take back notifications . submission of take back requests. Those Those implementing acts shall be adopted implementing acts shall be adopted in in accordance with the examination accordance with the examination procedure PE602.908v01-00 118/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN procedure referred to in Article 56(2). referred to in Article 56(2).

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 717 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

A MS cannot be merely 'notified' it should be in a position to check the validity of the take back request.

Amendment 718 Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 26 a Replying to a take back request 1. The requested Member State shall make the necessary checks and shall give a decision on the request to take back the person concerned as quickly as possible AM\1122581EN.docx 119/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN and in any event no later than one month from the date on which the request was received. When the request is based on data obtained from the Eurodac system, that time limit shall be reduced to two weeks. 2. Failure to act within the one month period or the two weeks period mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be tantamount to accepting the request, and shall entail the obligation to take back the person concerned, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.

Or. en

Justification

A MS cannot be merely 'notified' it should be in a position to check the validity of a take back request and therefore the article specifying the provisions on replying to a request must be maintained.

Amendment 719 Kostas Chrysogonos, Sofia Sakorafa, Kostadinka Kuneva, Stelios Kouloglou, Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Proposal for a regulation Article 26 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 26 a Replying to a take back request 1. The requested Member State shall make the necessary checks and shall give a decision on the request to take back the person concerned as quickly as possible and in any event no later than one month from the date on which the request was received. When the request is based on data obtained from the Eurodac system, that time limit shall be reduced to two weeks. 2. Failure to act within the one month period or the two weeks period mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be tantamount to

PE602.908v01-00 120/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN accepting the request, and shall entail the obligation to take back the person concerned, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 720 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Where the requested Member State 1. Where the requested Member State accepts to take charge of an applicant , the accepts to take charge of an applicant , the requesting Member State shall notify the requesting Member State shall notify the applicant in writing without delay of the applicant in writing within 5 days of the decision to transfer him or her to the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible and, where Member State responsible and, where applicable, of not examining his or her applicable, of not examining his or her application for international protection. application for international protection.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed to maintain the logic of the text as it should serve to ensure the realisation of the applicant’s procedural rights and an individual assessment of his or her circumstances. This amendment is inextricably linked to admissible amendments under the draft report aiming to strengthen the applicant’s procedural rights.

Amendment 721 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation

AM\1122581EN.docx 121/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Article 27 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 722 Emil Radev, Mariya Gabriel

Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Where the applicant or another deleted 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.

Or. en

Justification

Given the deletion of the articles listed in the text, it also has to be deleted. The deletion of Article 27(2) should apply to all subsequent references to it.

Amendment 723 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 2

PE602.908v01-00 122/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

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

Or. en

Amendment 724 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The applicant or another person as 1. The applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) referred to in Article 20(1)(c) or (d) shall shall have the right to an effective remedy, have the right to an effective remedy, in the in the form of an appeal or a review, in fact form of an appeal or a review, in fact and and in law, against a transfer decision, in law, against a transfer decision, before a before a court or tribunal. court or tribunal.

Or. en

Amendment 725 Cécile Kashetu Kyenge

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Member States shall provide for a 2. Member States shall provide for a period of 7 days after the notification of a period of 30 days after the notification of a transfer decision within which the person transfer decision within which the person concerned may exercise his or her right to concerned may exercise his or her right to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1. 1.

AM\1122581EN.docx 123/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Or. en

Justification

The deadline of 30 days after the notification of a transfer is more suitable because 7 days is too short.

Amendment 726 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Member States shall provide for a 2. Member States shall provide for a period of 7 days after the notification of a reasonable period, of no less than 15 days, transfer decision within which the person after the notification of a transfer decision concerned may exercise his or her right to within which the person concerned may an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph exercise his or her right to an effective 1. remedy pursuant to paragraph 1.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur suggests that a deadline of no less than 15 days is more suitable, because 7 days is too short.

Amendment 727 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Member States shall provide for a 2. Member States shall provide for a period of 7 days after the notification of a period of not less than 15 days after the transfer decision within which the person notification of a transfer decision within concerned may exercise his or her right to which the person concerned may exercise an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph his or her right to an effective remedy 1. pursuant to paragraph 1.

Or. en PE602.908v01-00 124/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Justification

Amendment 728 Alessandra Mussolini, Salvatore Domenico Pogliese, Carlos Coelho, Barbara Matera

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Member States shall provide for a 2. Member States shall provide for a period of 7 days after the notification of a period of 10 days after the notification of a transfer decision within which the person transfer decision within which the person concerned may exercise his or her right to concerned may exercise his or her right to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1. 1.

Or. en

Justification

The applicant should be given a reasonable period of time in order to exercise his or her right to an effective remedy. 10 days after the notification of a transfer decision seems to be a balanced option.

Amendment 729 Heinz K. Becker

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. For appeals against, or reviews of, 3. For appeals against, or reviews of transfer decisions, the court or tribunal transfer decisions, the court or tribunal shall decide within a period of 15 days on shall decide within a period of 15 days on the substance of the appeal or review. No the substance of the appeal or review. transfer shall take place before this Transfers shall take place after the period decision on the appeal or review is taken. of 15 days if no decision on the appeal or review is taken or the appeal is rejected.

Or. en

AM\1122581EN.docx 125/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Amendment 730 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

new4. The scope of the effective remedy deleted laid down in paragraph 1 shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon.

Or. en

Amendment 731 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Kati Piri, Birgit Sippel

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 732 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new4 PE602.908v01-00 126/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment new4. The scope of the effective remedy deleted laid down in paragraph 1 shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon.

Or. en

Amendment 733 Heinz K. Becker

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. Where no transfer decision deleted referred to in paragraph 1 is taken, Member States shall provide for an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, where the applicant claims that a family member or, in the case of unaccompanied minors, a relative is legally present in a Member State other than the one which is examining his or her application for international protection, and considers therefore that other Member State as Member State responsible for examining the application.

Or. en

Amendment 734 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. Where no transfer decision referred 5. Where no transfer decision referred

AM\1122581EN.docx 127/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN to in paragraph 1 is taken, Member States to in paragraph 1 is taken, Member States shall provide for an effective remedy shall provide for an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, where the before a court or tribunal, where the applicant claims that a family member or, applicant claims that a family member or, in the case of unaccompanied minors, a in the case of unaccompanied minors, a relative is legally present in a Member relative is legally present in a Member State other than the one which is State other than the one which is examining his or her application for examining his or her application for international protection, and considers international protection, and considers therefore that other Member State as therefore that other Member State as Member State responsible for examining Member State responsible for examining the application. the application. The person concerned may exercise his or her right to such an effective remedy as of the day after the deadline for notifying the transfer decision in accordance with Article 27(1) and within a period of at least 15 days from the notification of the transfer decision. For the purpose of exercising the right to an effective remedy in accordance with this paragraph, Member States shall notify the applicant in writing that a transfer decision has not been taken within the deadline for the notification of the transfer decision in accordance with Article 27(1).

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed to maintain the logic of the text as it should serve to ensure the realisation of the applicant's procedural rights and an individual assessment of his or her circumstances. This amendment is inextricably linked to admissible amendments under the draft report aiming to strengthen the applicant's procedural rights.

Amendment 735 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. Where no transfer decision referred 5. Where no transfer decision referred to in paragraph 1 is taken, Member States to in paragraph 1 is taken, Member States shall provide for an effective remedy shall provide for an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, where the before a court or tribunal, where the applicant claims that a family member or, applicant claims that another Member PE602.908v01-00 128/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN in the case of unaccompanied minors, a State is responsible for examining the relative is legally present in a Member application. State other than the one which is The person concerned may exercise his or examining his or her application for her right to such an effective remedy as of international protection, and considers the day after the deadline for notifying the therefore that other Member State as transfer decision in accordance with Member State responsible for examining Article 27(1) and within a period of 15 the application. days therefrom. For the purpose of exercising the right to an effective remedy in accordance with this paragraph, Member States shall notify the applicant in writing that a transfer decision has not been taken within the deadline for the notification of the transfer decision in accordance with Article 27(1).

Or. en

Justification

This amendment adds clarifications as to how the right to an effective remedy can be implemented. In this, the second and third sentence of this amendment are inextricably linked to Article 27(1), as well as the first sentence of this amendment.

Amendment 736 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Ana Gomes, Dietmar Köster, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1122581EN.docx 129/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Or. en

Amendment 737 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

new6. Member States shall ensure that the new6. Without prejudice to the person concerned has access to legal applicant's right to choose his or her own assistance and, where necessary, to legal advisor or other counselor at his or linguistic assistance. her own cost, Member State shall ensure that the person concerned has access to legal assistance and representation and, where necessary, to linguistic assistance and intercultural mediation, at all stages of the procedure provided for in this Regulation.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to other amendments seeking to improve access to legal assistance.

Amendment 738 Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Caterina Chinnici, Nathalie Griesbeck, Antonio López- Istúriz White, Barbara Matera, Damiano Zoffoli, Hilde Vautmans, Julie Ward, Silvia Costa, Luigi Morgano, Simona Bonafè, Michela Giuffrida, Alessandra Mussolini, Carlos Coelho

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

new6. Member States shall ensure that the new6. Without prejudice to the person concerned has access to legal applicant's right to choose his or her own assistance and, where necessary, to legal adviser or other counsellor at his or linguistic assistance. her own cost, Member States shall ensure that the person concerned has access to legal assistance and representation for minor applicants and, where necessary, to linguistic assistance at all stages of the procedures provided for in this PE602.908v01-00 130/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Regulation.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment aims at introducing special safeguards for minors.

Amendment 739 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Maria Grapini, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller, Dietmar Köster

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment new6. Member States shall ensure that the new6. Without prejudice to the person concerned has access to legal applicant's right to choose his or her own assistance and, where necessary, to legal adviser or other counsellor at his or linguistic assistance. her own cost, Member States shall ensure that the person concerned has access to legal assistance and representation and, where necessary, to linguistic assistance at all stages of the procedures provided for in this Regulation.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment was suggested by the shadow rapporteur in coherence with the amendment on providing free legal assistance at all stages referred in article 6- paragraph 1- point e a (new)

Amendment 740 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph new6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment new6. Member States shall ensure that the new6. Member States shall ensure that the person concerned has access to legal person concerned has access to free legal assistance and, where necessary, to assistance and, where necessary, to AM\1122581EN.docx 131/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN linguistic assistance. linguistic assistance, in line with Article 6ANEW.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 741 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall ensure that legal Member States shall ensure that legal assistance is granted on request free of assistance is granted on request free of charge where the person concerned cannot charge where the person concerned cannot afford the costs involved. Member States afford the costs involved. may provide that, as regards fees and other costs, the treatment of applicants shall not be more favourable than the treatment generally accorded to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 742 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Kostas Chrysogonos

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1

PE602.908v01-00 132/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to other amendments seeking to improve access to legal assistance.

Amendment 743 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Without arbitrarily restricting access to deleted legal assistance, Member States may provide that free legal assistance and representation not be granted where the appeal or review is considered by the competent authority or a court or tribunal to have no tangible prospect of success.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 744 AM\1122581EN.docx 133/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Dietmar Köster

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur wants to strengthen the provisions on the right to free legal assistance at all stages of the procedure, in line with what was already proposed in previous amendments.

Amendment 745 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Ana Gomes, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller, Dietmar Köster

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where a decision not to grant free legal deleted assistance and representation pursuant to this paragraph is taken by an authority other than a court or tribunal, Member States shall provide the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal to challenge that decision. In case the decision is challenged, this remedy shall be an integral part of the remedy referred to in paragraph 1.

Or. en

PE602.908v01-00 134/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Justification

The shadow rapporteur wants to strengthen the provisions on the right to free legal assistance at all stages of the procedure, in line with what was already proposed in previous amendments.

Amendment 746 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Dietmar Köster, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

In complying with the requirements set deleted out in this paragraph, Member States shall ensure that legal assistance and representation is not arbitrarily restricted and that the applicant’s effective access to justice is not hindered.

Or. en

Justification

This subparagraph is connected with the two previous subparagraphs that were deleted. The shadow rapporteur wants to strengthen the provisions on the right to free legal assistance at all stages of the procedure, in line with what was already proposed in previous amendments.

Amendment 747 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Kati Piri, Dietmar Köster, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Legal assistance shall include at least the Legal assistance shall include at least the preparation of the required procedural provision of information on the procedure documents and representation before a in the light of the applicant´s individual court or tribunal and may be restricted to circumstances, assistance in the legal advisors or counsellors specifically preparation of relevant documentation designated by national law to provide and personal interview, including participation in the personal interview as AM\1122581EN.docx 135/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN assistance and representation. necessary and the preparation of the required procedural documents and representation before a court or tribunal and may be restricted to legal advisors or counsellors specifically designated by national law to provide assistance and representation. Procedures for access to legal assistance shall be laid down in national law.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur wants to strengthen the provisions on the right to free legal assistance at all stages of the procedure, in line with what was already proposed in previous amendments.

Amendment 748 Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson

Proposal for a regulation Article 29

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 29 deleted Detention 1. Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is subject to the procedure established by this Regulation. 2. When there is a significant risk of absconding, Member States may detain the person concerned in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with this Regulation, on the basis of an individual assessment and only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively. 3. 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 PE602.908v01-00 136/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Regulation is carried out. Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notification shall not exceed two weeks from the lodging of the application. The Member State carrying out the procedure in accordance with this Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply on a take charge request . Such reply shall be given within one week of receipt of the take charge request. Failure to reply within the one- week period shall be tantamount to accepting the take charge request and shall entail the obligation to take the person in charge , including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival. Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the transfer of that person from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision . When the requesting Member State fails to comply with the deadlines for submitting a take charge request or take back notification or where the transfer does not take place within the period of four weeks referred to in the third subparagraph, the person shall no longer be detained. Articles 24, 26 and 30 shall continue to apply accordingly. 4. As regards the detention conditions and the guarantees applicable to persons detained, in order to secure the transfer procedures to the Member State responsible, Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Directive 2013/33/EU shall apply.

Or. en

Justification

My reworking of Chapter VII makes the need for detention in the framework of Dublin procedures obsolete. It is thus inextricably linked to my amendments to that chapter.

AM\1122581EN.docx 137/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Amendment 749 Kristina Winberg, Beatrix von Storch

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Member States shall not hold a deleted person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is subject to the procedure established by this Regulation.

Or. en

Justification

The security risks for the member state and its population when allowing entry to migrants without any possibility to check their background is substantial. It is a well-established fact that a substantial amount of migrants have fought in the name of terror organizations. Hence, it is every member states duty to initially ensure that none of these individuals can move freely within the EU without a comprehensive security investigation in regard to their background.

Amendment 750 Lorenzo Fontana

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. 1. Member States may hold a person in detention to establish his or her right to asylum.

Or. it

Justification

In line with proposed amendment to recital 27.

Amendment 751 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller, Dietmar Köster, Birgit Sippel

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 PE602.908v01-00 138/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. When there is a significant risk of 2. In exceptional cases Member absconding, Member States may detain the States may detain a person in order to person concerned in order to secure secure transfer procedures in accordance transfer procedures in accordance with this with this Regulation, on the basis of an Regulation, on the basis of an individual individual assessment only where the assessment and only in so far as detention applicant has been intercepted after is proportional and other less coercive having tried to abscond or where it alternative measures cannot be applied appears evident on the basis of his or her effectively. 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.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur seeks to better clarify the circumstances under which Member States may detain a person according to this Regulation.

Amendment 752 Kristina Winberg, Beatrix von Storch

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. When there is a significant risk of 2. Member States may detain the absconding, Member States may detain the person concerned in order to secure person concerned in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with this transfer procedures in accordance with this Regulation. Regulation, on the basis of an individual assessment and only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively.

Or. en

Justification

The security risks for the member state and its population when allowing entry to migrants without any possibility to check their background is substantial. It is a well-established fact

AM\1122581EN.docx 139/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN that a substantial amount of migrants have fought in the name of terror organizations. Hence, it is every member states duty to initially ensure that none of these individuals can move freely within the EU without a comprehensive security investigation in regard to their background.

Amendment 753 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. When there is a significant risk of 2. When there is a significant risk of absconding, Member States may detain the absconding, Member States may detain the person concerned in order to secure person concerned in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with this transfer procedures in accordance with this Regulation, on the basis of an individual Regulation, on the basis of an individual assessment and only in so far as detention assessment and only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied alternative measures cannot be applied effectively. effectively, based on an individual assessment of the applicant's circumstances carried out by an independent judge.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 754 Heinz K. Becker

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. When there is a significant risk of 2. When there are indications that absconding, Member States may detain the there is a risk of absconding, in particular person concerned in order to secure when the applicant did not comply with transfer procedures in accordance with this his obligations set out in Article 5, Regulation, on the basis of an individual Member States shall detain the person PE602.908v01-00 140/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN assessment and only in so far as detention concerned in order to secure transfer is proportional and other less coercive procedures in accordance with this alternative measures cannot be applied Regulation, on the basis of an individual effectively. assessment in so far as detention is proportional. Detention shall be kept as short as possible and shall not exceed 4 weeks.

Or. en

Justification

In order to effectively prevent secondary movement, Member States should be able to prevent migrants from further movements that would cause further administrative efforts and would extend the application procedure significantly.

Amendment 755 Salvatore Domenico Pogliese, Alessandra Mussolini

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2a. Because of measures taken to counteract absconding, the cost of detention in certain Member States is very high. The European Union Agency for Asylum and the AMIF shall provide the financial aid and resources necessary to ensure effective detention without placing too heavy a burden on public funds.

Or. it

Justification

The non-implementation of transfers and returns of rejected applicants generates high social costs in connection with irregular migration and it has been calculated that up to 42 % of applicants not effectively transferred under the Dublin system may may still be present without authorisation in the EU.

Amendment 756 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Birgit Sippel, Péter Niedermüller, Dietmar Köster

AM\1122581EN.docx 141/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Detention shall be for as short a period as Detention shall be for as short a period as possible and shall be for no longer than the possible and shall be for no longer than the time reasonably necessary to fulfil the time reasonably necessary to fulfil the required administrative procedures with required administrative procedures with due diligence until the transfer under this due diligence until the transfer under this Regulation is carried out. Regulation is carried out, and in any case it shall not exceed 3 months.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur aims at putting adequate safeguards to the applicant´s fundamental rights, by also putting a clear time limit to the cases of detention.

Amendment 757 Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Caterina Chinnici, Nathalie Griesbeck, Barbara Matera, Damiano Zoffoli, Hilde Vautmans, Julie Ward, Silvia Costa, Luigi Morgano, Simona Bonafè, Michela Giuffrida, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Alessandra Mussolini, Carlos Coelho

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Minors shall not be detained; Member States shall instead accommodate minors and families with minors in non- custodial, community-based placements while their immigration status is processed.

Or. en

Justification

The amendment seeks to align this Regulation with the UN CRC by ensuring that best interests of the child are respected by prohibiting detention of children in the context of this Regulation. The detention of minors is never in their best interests.

Amendment 758 PE602.908v01-00 142/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where a person is detained pursuant to deleted this Article, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notification shall not exceed two weeks from the lodging of the application. The Member State carrying out the procedure in accordance with this Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply on a take charge request . Such reply shall be given within one week of receipt of the take charge request. Failure to reply within the one- week period shall be tantamount to accepting the take charge request and shall entail the obligation to take the person in charge , including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.

Or. en

Justification

This paragraph is deleted as a consequence of having put a clear time limit to the cases of detention.

Amendment 759 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where a person is detained pursuant to this Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the period for submitting a take Article, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notification charge request or a take back shall not exceed two weeks from the notification shall not exceed one lodging of the application. The Member week from the lodging of the application. State carrying out the procedure in The Member State carrying out the

AM\1122581EN.docx 143/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN accordance with this Regulation shall ask procedure in accordance with this for an urgent reply on a take charge request Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply on . Such reply shall be given within one week a take charge request . Such reply shall be of receipt of the take charge request. given within one week of receipt of the Failure to reply within the one-week period take charge request. Failure to reply within shall be tantamount to accepting the take the one-week period shall be tantamount to charge request and shall entail the accepting the take charge request and shall obligation to take the person in charge , entail the obligation to take the person including the obligation to provide for in charge , including the obligation to proper arrangements for arrival. provide for proper arrangements for arrival.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 760 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where a person is detained pursuant to this Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the transfer of that person from the Article, the transfer of that person from the requesting Member State to the Member requesting Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out as State responsible shall be carried out as soon as practically possible, and at the soon as practically possible, and at the latest within four weeks from the final latest within one week from the final transfer decision . transfer decision .

Or. en

Justification

PE602.908v01-00 144/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Amendment 761 Kristina Winberg, Beatrix von Storch

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

When the requesting Member State fails deleted to comply with the deadlines for submitting a take charge request or take back notification or where the transfer does not take place within the period of four weeks referred to in the third subparagraph, the person shall no longer be detained. Articles 24, 26 and 30 shall continue to apply accordingly.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 762 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

When the requesting Member State fails to When the requesting Member State fails to comply with the deadlines for submitting a comply with the deadlines for submitting a take charge request or take back take charge request or take back notification or where the transfer does not notification or where the transfer does not take place within the period of four weeks take place within the period of one week referred to in the third subparagraph, the referred to in the third subparagraph, the person shall no longer be detained. Articles person shall no longer be detained. Articles 24, 26 and 30 shall continue to apply 24, 26 and 30 shall continue to apply accordingly. accordingly.

Or. en

AM\1122581EN.docx 145/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN Justification

Amendment 763 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3 a. Detention of applicants shall be ordered in writing by judicial authorities. The detention order shall state the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based and shall contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons as to why they could not be applied effectively.

Or. en

Justification

The amendment seeks to align the text with the draft of the proposal of rapporteur Sophie In´t´Veld on the recast of the Reception Conditions Regulation, at Article 9(2).

Amendment 764 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Miriam Dalli, Kati Piri, Dietmar Köster, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. As regards the detention conditions 4. As regards the detention conditions, and the guarantees applicable to persons which shall fully respect the person´s detained, in order to secure the transfer fundamental rights, and the guarantees procedures to the Member State applicable to persons detained, in order to responsible, Articles 9, 10 and 11 of secure the transfer procedures to the PE602.908v01-00 146/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Directive 2013/33/EU shall apply. Member State responsible, Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Directive 2013/33/EU shall apply.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur believes it is important to recall the need to fully respect the person´s fundamental rights.

Amendment 765 Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini, Bodil Valero on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4 a. For the purpose of the implementation of this Regulation, Member States shall not hold children in detention.

Or. en

Justification

Amendments aimed at prohibiting detention of children are inextricably linked to admissible amendments under the draft report aiming to strengthen the conditions related to the deprivation of personal freedom, and also to enhance the provisions related to the treatment of vulnerable persons including children. The UN CRC, UNHCR and UNICEF have clarified that children, whether unaccompanied, separated, or together with their parents or other caregivers, should never be detained for immigration purposes, irrespective of their legal/migration status or that of their parents, and that detention can never be justified as in a child's best interests. See:UNHCR's position regarding the detention of refugee and migrant children in the migration context, January 2017, p. 2; UNHCR 2012 Detention Guidelines, paragraph 51. References to the application of Art.37(b), "exceptional circumstances / measure of last resort", are not appropriate for cases of detention of any child for immigration related purposes. It is understood from the commentaries of the UN CRC, that while Art. 37 (b) may apply in other contexts (such as in cases of children in conflict with the law – CRC/C/GC/10), its application to detention in the immigration context would be in conflict with the principle of best interests of the child. See also: CRC/GC/2005/6) – para. 61;UN CRC, Report on the 2012 DGD: The rights of all children in the context of international migration – para.78: "The detention of a child because of their or their parent's migration status constitutes a child rights violation and always contravenes the principle of the best interests of the child. In this light, States should expeditiously and completely cease

AM\1122581EN.docx 147/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN the detention of children on the basis of their immigration status."; UN SR on Torture, 5 March 2015 (A/HRC/28/68) – para. 80.

Amendment 766 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The determining Member State whose take The determining Member State whose take charge request referred to in Article 20(1) charge request referred to in Article 20(1) (a) was accepted or who made a take back (a) was accepted or who made a take back notification referred to in Article 20(1) (b) notification referred to in Article 20(1) (b) to (e) shall take a transfer decision at the to (d) shall take a transfer decision at the latest within one week of acceptance or latest within one week of acceptance or notification and transfer the applicant or notification and transfer the applicant or the person concerned to the Member State the person concerned to the Member State responsible. responsible.

Or. en

Amendment 767 Alessandra Mussolini, Salvatore Domenico Pogliese, Carlos Coelho, Barbara Matera, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

newThe transfer of the applicant or of newThe transfer of the applicant or of another person as referred to in Article another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) from the requesting 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) from the requesting Member State to the Member State Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out in responsible shall be carried out in accordance with the national law of the accordance with the national law of the requesting Member State, after requesting Member State, after consultation between the Member States consultation between the Member States concerned, as soon as practically possible, concerned, as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within four weeks from the and at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision . final transfer decision. Especially when the transfer to the Member State responsible is carried out on a voluntary basis, the

PE602.908v01-00 148/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN European Union Agency for Asylum shall play a key role in assuring that the applicant is effectively transferred.

Or. en

Justification

All the necessary actions to make transfers successful should be carried out. The European Union Agency for Asylum should play a key role in assisting the national relevant authorities to achieve this aim.

Amendment 768 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller

Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment newThe transfer of the applicant or of newThe transfer of the applicant or of another person as referred to in Article another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) from the requesting 20(1)(c) or (d) from the requesting Member State to the Member State Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out in responsible shall be carried out in accordance with the national law of the accordance with the national law of the requesting Member State, after requesting Member State, after consultation between the Member States consultation between the Member States concerned, as soon as practically possible, concerned, as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within four weeks from the and at the latest within four weeks from the final transfer decision . final transfer decision .

Or. en

Amendment 769 Filiz Hyusmenova

Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1122581EN.docx 149/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN State responsible shall be met by the shall be met by the general budget of the transferring Member State. Union.

Or. en

Justification

In order to avoid imposing excessive financial burden connected to applying the Regulation on the Member States the transfers under this Regulation should be covered by the general budget of the EU

Amendment 770 Elly Schlein, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Miriam Dalli, Kati Piri, Dietmar Köster

Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The costs necessary to transfer an 1. The costs necessary to transfer an applicant or another person as referred to in applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c), (d) or (e) to the Member Article 20(1)(c) or (d) to the Member State State responsible shall be met by the responsible shall be met by the general transferring Member State. budget of the Union.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur supports the proposal of the rapporteur, that goes in the direction of a progressive centralisation of responsibilities on asylum at European level, in line with the Resolution on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration approved by the Parliament in April 2016

Amendment 771 Elly Schlein, Sylvie Guillaume, Josef Weidenholzer, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Gomes, Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, Caterina Chinnici, Miriam Dalli, Kati Piri, Péter Niedermüller, Marju Lauristin

Proposal for a regulation Article 31 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE602.908v01-00 150/151 AM\1122581EN.docx EN Article 31 a Costs of reception The costs of reception of applicants covered by a determining Member State until the transfer to the Member State responsible (or until the moment in which it assumes responsibility on the application) should be refunded by the general budget of the Union.

Or. en

Justification

In order to be coherent with the Resolution on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration approved by the Parliament in April 2016, and with the objective of a progressive centralisation of responsibility on asylum at European level, the costs of reception of applicants should be covered by the general budget of the Union, that shall be increased for this purpose.

AM\1122581EN.docx 151/151 PE602.908v01-00 EN