natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In its report the Commission announces in its conclusions that 'overall, the objectives of the Dublin system, notably to establish a clear and workable mechanism for determining responsibility for asylum applications, have, to a large extent, been achieved
In its report the Commission announces in its conclusions that 'overall, the objectives of the Dublin system, notably to establish a clear and workable mechanism for determining responsibility for asylum applications, have, to a large extent, been achieved
COM (2007) 299 final, p.13. .'
COM (2007) 299 final, p.13. .'
Given the number of shortcomings which the Commission very judiciously highlights in its evaluation and the number of clarifications which it rightly intends to incorporate into the provisions of the Regulation, such a statement (which, incidentally, is too vague to be easily challenged) is nonetheless surprising.
Given the number of shortcomings which the Commission very judiciously highlights in its evaluation and the number of clarifications which it rightly intends to incorporate into the provisions of the Regulation, such a statement (which, incidentally, is too vague to be easily challenged) is nonetheless surprising.
With regard to action to combat the phenomena of 'refugees in orbit' and 'asylum-shopping' (which are regarded in another part of the annex as one of the main objectives of the Dublin system), this does not appear in all cases to have been successful, since the percentage of multiple applications increased from 7% in 2003 to 16% in 2005, which leads the Commission itself to conclude that the Dublin system has not had the expected deterrent effect
With regard to action to combat the phenomena of 'refugees in orbit' and 'asylum-shopping' (which are regarded in another part of the annex as one of the main objectives of the Dublin system), this does not appear in all cases to have been successful, since the percentage of multiple applications increased from 7% in 2003 to 16% in 2005, which leads the Commission itself to conclude that the Dublin system has not had the expected deterrent effect
Therefore there is a need for further consideration as to why the system is not working.
Therefore there is a need for further consideration as to why the system is not working.
The second criterion adopted by the Commission was concerned with establishing ‘ whether the Dublin Regulation has addressed some of the particular problems noted in the application of the Dublin Convention ... namely, time limits for request-processing, family unification and the system’s overall efficiency, in particular the implementation of transfers. ’
The second criterion adopted by the Commission was concerned with establishing ‘ whether the Dublin Regulation has addressed some of the particular problems noted in the application of the Dublin Convention . .. namely , time limits for request-processing, family uni fication and the system’s overall efficiency, in particular the implementation of transfers. ’
In its report the Commission points out that the problem of transfers (of which only about one-third actually take place) constitutes one of the main obstacles to the effective implementation of the system
In its report the Commission points out that the problem of transfers (of which only about one-third actually take place) constitutes one of the main obstacles to the effective implementation of the system
Although 40,180 applications were accepted, only 16,842 transfers took place between September 2003 and December 2005. .
Although 40,180 applications were accepted, only 16,842 transfers took place between September 2003 and December 2005. .
As regards family reunification (which is listed as the first criterion in the Regulation), this would appear to be more theoretical than real, since the Commission states in the Annex that the relevant provisions of the Regulation are only ‘very rarely applied
As regards family reunification (which is listed as the first criterion in the Regulation), this would appear to be more theoretical than real, since the Commission states in the Annex that the relevant provisions of the Regulation are only ‘very rarely applied
Where these two points are concerned it would thus appear that the second criterion has not been entirely met.
Where these two points are concerned it would thus appear that the second criterion has not been entirely met.
The third criterion was specifically concerned with the number of effective transfers , the surprisingly low rate of which is indicative of the shortcomings in the system and should be explained more clearly.
The third criterion was specifically concerned with the number of effective transfers , the surprisingly low rate of which is indicative of the shortcomings in the system and should be explained more clearly.
The fourth criterion was concerned with ‘ the influence of the Dublin system on the individual asylum systems of Member States ’, the purpose of the analysis being to determine whether the Dublin system benefited certain Member States or put them at a disadvantage.
The fourth criterion was concerned with ‘ the influence of the Dublin system on the individual asylum systems of Member States ’, the purpose of the analysis being to determine whether the Dublin system benefited certain Member States or put them at a disadvantage.
In the rapporteur’s view the Commission’s analysis of the ‘Dublin flows’ (which relates to this fourth criterion) is to be questioned on various grounds.
In the rapporteur’s view the Commission’s analysis of the ‘Dublin flows’ (which relates to this fourth criterion) is to be questioned on various grounds.
Firstly (as the Commission itself states in the Annex), there are disparities in the statistical data provided by the Member States
Firstly (as the Commission itself states in the Annex), there are disparities in the statistical data provided by the Member States
6. : for example, certain Member States count an entire family as a single case, whereas others count each individual member of the family.
6. : for example, certain Member States count an entire family as a single case, whereas others count each individual member of the family.
Secondly, the Commission bases its evaluation of Dublin flows on actual transfers and not on transfers accepted but not carried out - yet as the Commission itself admits, proper operation of the transfer mechanism would lead to a significant increase in the number of applicants in certain border countries.
Secondly, the Commission bases its evaluation of Dublin flows on actual transfers and not on transfers accepted but not carried out - yet as the Commission itself admits, proper operation of the transfer mechanism would lead to a significant increase in the number of applicants in certain border countries.
Lastly, as the Commission makes clear in its evaluation, it would appear - in view of the ‘surprisingly low’ number of illegal entrants registered in the Eurodac database
Lastly, as the Commission makes clear in its evaluation, it would appear - in view of the ‘surprisingly low’ number of illegal entrants registered in the Eurodac database
COM (2007) 299 final, p.
COM (2007) 299 final, p.
9. - that the obligation to fingerprint all illegal entrants at the EU’s external borders is not complied with by all the Member States.
9. - that the obligation to fingerprint all illegal entrants at the EU’s external borders is not complied with by all the Member States.
However, the data registered on Eurodac are essential not only to the application of one of the Dublin criteria but also to any critical, objective evaluation of the functioning and the repercussions of the system.
However, the data registered on Eurodac are essential not only to the application of one of the Dublin criteria but also to any critical, objective evaluation of the functioning and the repercussions of the system.
In these circumstances the rapporteur takes the view that the statement made by the Commission in its evaluation to the effect that ‘ contrary to a widely shared supposition that the majority of transfers are directed towards the Member States located at an external border, it appears that the overall allocation between border and non-border Member States is actually rather balanced ’ is based on somewhat shaky foundations, especially since the distinction made by the Commission between the ‘States located on an external border’ and the others is based (as your rapporteur has ascertained) on criteria which contradict basic geography, since Finland in particular (whose border with Russia is nearly 1300 kilometres long) is included amongst the countries with no external border
In these circumstances the rapporteur takes the view that the statement made by the Commission in its evaluation to the effect that ‘ contrary to a widely shared supposition that the majority of transfers are directed towards the Member States located at an external border, it appears that the overall allocation between border and non-border Member States is actually rather balanced ’ is based on somewhat shaky foundations, especially since the distinction made by the Commission between the ‘States located on an external border’ and the others is based (as your rapporteur has ascertained) on criteria which contradict basic geography, since Finland in particular (whose border with Russia is nearly 1300 kilometres long) is included amongst the countries with no external border
Countries which have land borders with non-EU countries and ones which have maritime borders exposed to migratory pressures are regarded as countries with external borders : Estonia, la Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, Spain, Malta, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus.
Countries which have land borders with non-EU countries and ones which have maritime borders exposed to migratory pressures are regarded as countries with external borders : Estonia, la Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, Spain, Malta, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus.
The following countries are deemed to have no external borders : Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Austria, the Czech Republic and Finland. .
The following countries are deemed to have no external borders : Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Austria, the Czech Republic and Finland. .
To summarise, it would appear that the optimistic conclusion drawn by the Commission from its evaluation (namely, that ‘the objectives of the Dublin system ... have, to a large extent, been achieved’) is based more on a favourable bias towards the system (which one may or may not share) than on a rigorous analysis (which would in any case be difficult to carry out on account of the gaps and the disparities in the data available).
To summarise, it would appear that the optimistic conclusion drawn by the Commission from its evaluation (namely, that ‘the objectives of the Dublin system ... have, to a large extent, been achieved’ ) is based more on a favourable bias towards the system (which one may or may not share) than on a r igorous analysis (which would in any case be difficult to carry out on account of the gaps and the disparities in the data available).
Proposed amendments to the Regulation
Proposed amendments to the Regulation
On the basis in particular of the problems unearthed by the Commission, your rapporteur suggests that the following aspects of the system should be clarified or modified:
On the basis in particular of the problems unearthed by the Commission, your rapporteur suggests that the following aspects of the system should be clarified or modified:
Observance of the basic principle of non-refoulement : all requests must be examined in detail and no file may be closed for 'procedural' reasons unless such an examination has been carried out.
Observance of the basic principle of non-refoulement : all requests must be examined in detail and no file may be closed for 'procedural' reasons unless such an examination has been carried out.
Applicants must receive all relevant information concerning the Dublin system in a language which they understand and they must have access to legal aid throughout the procedure; they must also have the right to a suspensory appeal against any transfer decision.
Applicants must receive all relevant information concerning the Dublin system in a language which they understand and they must have access to legal aid throughout the procedure; they must also have the right to a suspensory appeal against any transfer decision.
The criteria for determining the age of minors should be harmonised and minors should not be transferred other than in exceptional cases, if doing so is in their interest; they should be duly accompanied and represented during transfer, in order to ensure that they do not go missing.
The criteria for determining the age of minors should be harmonised and minors should not be transferred other than in exceptional cases, if doing so is in their interest; they should be duly accompanied and represented during transfer, in order to ensure that they do not go missing.
The definition of the family should be broadened, so that greater account can be taken of applicants' legitimate interests; the provisions relating to family reunification should be extended to the applicants for (or the beneficiaries of) subsidiary protection.
The definition of the family should be broadened, so that greater account can be taken of applicants' legitimate interests; the provisions relating to family reunification should be extended to the applicants for (or the beneficiaries of) subsidiary protection.
Consideration should be given to making certain provisions of the humanitarian clause mandatory, particularly in the case of especially vulnerable people.
Consideration should be given to making certain provisions of the humanitarian clause mandatory, particularly in the case of especially vulnerable people.
The sovereignty clause should not be activated without the applicant's consent.
The sovereignty clause should not be activated without the applicant's consent.
Detention should not be applied other than in cases of duly justified absolute necessity and applicants awaiting transfer should be accommodated under the same conditions as any other applicant.
Detention should not be applied other than in cases of duly justified absolute necessity and applicants awaiting transfer should be accommodated under the same conditions as any other applicant.
Mechanisms should be devised for blocking transfers to countries which plainly do not uphold applicants' rights or to ones which are required to cope with strong migratory pressures at certain periods.
Mechanisms should be devised for blocking transfers to countries which plainly do not uphold applicants' rights or to ones which are required to cope with strong migratory pressures at certain periods.
Before any consideration is given to extending access to the Eurodac database to the forces of order and to Europol, existing problems should be resolved and the necessary safeguards concerning the protection of personal data should be put in place.
Before any consideration is given to extending access to the Eurodac database to the forces of order and to Europol, existing problems should be resolved and the necessary safeguards concerning the protection of personal data should be put in place.
Your Rapporteur considers that we must bring into question whether the Dublin system is really 'fit for purpose'.
Your Rapporteur considers that we must bring into question whether the Dublin system is really 'fit for purpose'.
It would appear that the system is assigning a disproportionate amount of responsibility towards Member States at the borders of the EU, and whilst this clarifies which Member State is responsible for examining the asylum claim, there are no real mechanisms for providing these States' support.
It would appear that the system is assigning a disproportionate amount of responsibility towards Member States at the borders of the EU, and whilst this clarifies which Member State is responsible for examining the asylum claim, there are no real mechanisms for providing these States' support.
Furthermore, considering the importance of integration, more account should be taken of existing links between asylum seekers and specific Member States where a relevant community has already settled, or with which the asylum seeker has a language or culture in common.
Furthermore, considering the importance of integration, more account should be taken of existing links between asylum seekers and specific Member States where a relevant community has already settled, or with which the asylum seeker has a language or culture in common.
However, one fundamental problem still remains, which is that until all the Member States offer all applicants a level and a quality of protection which are, if not identical, then at least equivalent and of high quality, applicants will continue to have a legitimate interest in submitting their application in one Member State rather than another, or they will be tempted to submit multiple applications and thus to circumvent the provisions of the Dublin system.
However, one fundamental problem still remains, which is that until all the Member States offer all applicants a level and a quality of protection which are, if not identical, then at least equivalent and of high quality, applicants will continue to have a legitimate interest in submitting their application in one Member State rather than another, or they will be tempted to submit multiple applications and thus to circumvent the provisions of the Dublin system.
This is a trend which restrictive application of the family-reunification criterion would only accentuate.
This is a trend which restrictive application of the family-reunification criterion would only accentuate.
The problem cannot be solved through revision of the Dublin Regulation but it should be tackled when the forthcoming instruments of the common European asylum system are revised.
The problem cannot be solved through revision of the Dublin Regulation but it should be tackled when the forthcoming instruments of the common European asylum system are revised.
As regards the Dublin Regulation, one of the main aims of the revision should be to take the greatest possible account of applicants' legitimate wishes, to provide them with information and to ensure that their application is dealt with under optimum conditions and in full accordance with the Geneva Convention.
As regards the Dublin Regulation, one of the main aims of the revision should be to take the greatest possible account of applicants' legitimate wishes, to provide them with information and to ensure that their application is dealt with under optimum conditions and in full accordance with the Geneva Convention.
Alexander Alvaro, Mario Borghezio, Emine Bozkurt, Philip Bradbourn, Mihael Brejc, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Giusto Catania, Jean-Marie Cavada, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Panayiotis Demetriou, Gérard Deprez, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Claudio Fava, Armando França, Urszula Gacek, Kinga Gál, Patrick Gaubert, Roland Gewalt, Lilli Gruber, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Lívia Járóka, Ewa Klamt, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Stavros Lambrinidis, Roselyne Lefrançois, Baroness Sarah Ludford, Claude Moraes, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Rareş-Lucian Niculescu, Martine Roure, Inger Segelström, Csaba Sógor, Vladimir Urutchev, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Manfred Weber, Tatjana Ždanoka
Alexander Alvaro, Mario Borghezio, Emine Bozkurt, Philip Bradbourn, Mihael Brejc, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Giusto Catania, Jean-Marie Cavada, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Panayiotis Demetriou, Gérard Deprez, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Claudio Fava, Armando França, Urszula Gacek, Kinga Gál, Patrick Gaubert, Roland Gewalt, Lilli Gruber, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Lívia Járóka, Ewa Klamt, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Stavros Lambrinidis, Roselyne Lefrançois, Baroness Sarah Ludford, Claude Moraes, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Rareş-Lucian Niculescu, Martine Roure, Inger Segelström, Csaba Sógor, Vladimir Urutchev, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Manfred Weber, Tatjana Ždanoka
Anne Ferreira, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Metin Kazak, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Bill Newton Dunn, Nicolae Vlad Popa, Rainer Wieland
Anne Ferreira, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Metin Kazak, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Bill Newton Dunn, Nicolae Vlad Popa, Rainer Wieland
Iles Braghetto, Michl Ebner, Syed Kamall
Iles Braghetto, Michl Ebner, Syed Kamall
(Преработен текст – член 80а от правилника)
(Recast – Rule 80a of the Rules of Procedure)
PE 407.765v02-00
PE 407.765v02-00
Евентуални заличавания, които засягат такива пасажи, се обозначават по следния начин:.[...].
Any deletions that Parliament wishes to make in passages of this kind are indicated thus: [...].
ANNEX: OPINION IN LETTER FORM OF THE LEGAL SERVICES' CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY Error!
ANNEX: OPINION IN LETTER FORM OF THE LEGAL SERVICES' CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY 11
( COM(2007)0859 – C6 0001/2008 – 2007/0288(COD) )
( COM(2007)0859 – C6 0001/2008 – 2007/0288(COD) )
– като взе предвид предложението на Комисията до Европейския парламент и до Съвета ( COM(2007)0859 ),
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2007)0859 ),
– като взе предвид член 251, параграф 2, и член 285, параграф 1, от Договора за ЕО, съгласно които предложението e внесено от Комисията ( C6‑0001/2008 ),
– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 285(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament ( C6‑0001/2008 ),
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по правни въпроси и становището на комисията по транспорт и туризъм ( A6‑0288/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism ( A6‑0288/2008 ),
1. одобрява предложението на Комисията във вида, в който е изменено и адаптирано спрямо препоръките на консултативната работна група на правните служби на Европейския парламент, Съвета и Комисията;
Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission and as amended below;
Член 3 - параграф 3 а (нов)
Article 3 - paragraph 3 a (new)
Комисията привежда в съответствие характеристиките на събираните данни и съдържанието на приложения І до VІІІ с икономическия и технически напредък, доколкото такова привеждане в съответствие не включва значително увеличение на разходите за държавите-членки и/или на бремето за респондентите.
The Commission shall adapt the data collection characteristics and the content of Annexes I to VIII to economic and technical developments in so far as such adaptation does not involve a substantial increase in cost for the Member States and/or in the burden on respondents.
Тези мерки, целящи изменение на несъществени елементи от настоящата директива чрез нейното допълване, се приемат в съответствие с процедурата по регулиране с контрол, предвидена в член 11, параграф 3.
Those measures, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 11(3).
The Commission proposes to introduce RPS for Articles 3, 4, 5 as well as for modification of Annexes I to VII, and proposes to keep the management procedure for Article 7 and 9.
The Commission proposes to introduce RPS for Articles 3, 4, 5 as well as for modification of Annexes I to VII, and proposes to keep the management procedure for Article 7 and 9.