natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
So the Parliament has not been asked to exercise its full powers.
So the Parliament has not been asked to exercise its full powers.
Therefore the Rapporteur thinks that the Council failed to respect the principle of loyal cooperation between the institutions.
Therefore the Rapporteur thinks that the Council failed to respect the principle of loyal cooperation between the institutions.
Moreover, the rapporteur is of the opinion that the time-consuming negotiations in the Council have not produced a satisfactory conclusion.
Moreover, the rapporteur is of the opinion that the time-consuming negotiations in the Council have not produced a satisfactory conclusion.
The rapporteur believes that the participation of the European Parliament in this process would have led to a much better result.
The rapporteur believes that the participation of the European Parliament in this process would have led to a much better result.
The rapporteur is primarily concerned by the fact that the procedure apparently will result in the undermining of standards with regard to definitions laid down in international conventions, such as the Geneva Convention concerning the rights of refugees, the UN-convention on children's rights and other fundamental codices.
The rapporteur is primarily concerned by the fact that the procedure apparently will result in the undermining of standards with regard to definitions laid down in international conventions, such as the Geneva Convention concerning the rights of refugees, the UN-convention on children's rights and other fundamental codices.
Additionally the rapporteur is concerned by the fact that the planned first step in the harmonisation of the asylum procedure in the presented form is not satisfactory and even inappropriate, as the Parliament had already concluded back in 2001 when evaluating the first proposal of the Commission:
Additionally the rapporteur is concerned by the fact that the planned first step in the harmonisation of the asylum procedure in the presented form is not satisfactory and even inappropriate, as the Parliament had already concluded back in 2001 when evaluating the first proposal of the Commission:
· The directive does not achieve significant progress in harmonisation.
· The directive does not achieve significant progress in harmonisation.
· Discretion is left to Member States to retain their national laws, through the many "may" provisions, exceptions and stand still clauses.
· Discretion is left to Member States to retain their national laws, through the many "may" provisions, exceptions and stand still clauses.
· The aim to build a simple, clear and easy-to-access legal structure has been failed.
· The aim to build a simple, clear and easy-to-access legal structure has been failed.
The amended proposal sets out a nový structure for asylum procedures in the Member States and the “general approach” text departs from a considerable number of minimum standards originally proposed by the Commission.
The amended proposal sets out a new structure for asylum procedures in the Member States and the “general approach” text departs from a considerable number of minimum standards originally proposed by the Commission.
The current text provides for a great number of substantial exceptions and limitations, which would even allow some Member States to lower their procedural standards.
The current text provides for a great number of substantial exceptions and limitations, which would even allow some Member States to lower their procedural standards.
The "level playing field" is therefore reduced to a catalogue of national practices, including many which are not in line with international best practices.
The "level playing field" is therefore reduced to a catalogue of national practices, including many which are not in line with international best practices.
Due to the same reasons the European Parliament had already advised the Commission to withdraw and substantially revise the first proposal in the Watson report 2001.As well as the UNHCR back then and today expressed its deep concerns about a number of restrictive and highly controversial practices that are currently only contained in one or two member states national legislation but could be inserted in the legislation of all 25 EU Member States.
Due to the same reasons the European Parliament had already advised the Commission to withdraw and substantially revise the first proposal in the Watson report 2001.As well as the UNHCR back then and today expressed its deep concerns about a number of restrictive and highly controversial practices that are currently only contained in one or two member states national legislation but could be inserted in the legislation of all 25 EU Member States.
The rapporteur’s urgent suggestion
The rapporteur’s urgent suggestion
Though some Member States have no legislation on asylum, like Italy, the proposed Directive will improve only marginally the state of affairs in other Member States; as a matter of fact, it could definitely be a step back for some of them!
Though some Member States have no legislation on asylum, like Italy, the proposed Directive will improve only marginally the state of affairs in other Member States; as a matter of fact, it could definitely be a step back for some of them!
Considering all the facts mentioned before, the rapporteur concludes that the Parliament should only adopt the proposed directive under the condition, that its Pozměňovací návrhs, particularly with regard to the following bods, will be implemented by the Council in the suggested way and with regard to the Parliament's future privilege of codecision.
Considering all the facts mentioned before, the rapporteur concludes that the Parliament should only adopt the proposed directive under the condition, that its amendments, particularly with regard to the following points, will be implemented by the Council in the suggested way and with regard to the Parliament's future privilege of codecision.
The rapporteur regards the concept of the so-called super safe countries to be inappropriate and rejects it in principle :
The rapporteur regards the concept of the so-called super safe countries to be inappropriate and rejects it in principle :
It provides that Member States may deny access to the procedure to all asylum seekers who come from these countries.
It provides that Member States may deny access to the procedure to all asylum seekers who come from these countries.
These provisions do not require an individual assessment and appear to be against the non-refoulement principle.
These provisions do not require an individual assessment and appear to be against the non-refoulement principle.
The rapporteur puts forward his urgent demand to check the safe-third country concept with regard to the actual practice concerning the possible violation of the Geneva Convention and the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental rights to change it in the suggested way.
The rapporteur puts forward his urgent demand to check the safe-third country concept with regard to the actual practice concerning the possible violation of the Geneva Convention and the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental rights to change it in the suggested way.
According to the UNHCR, it is not possible to designate third countries generally as "safe", without considering the individual case.
According to the UNHCR, it is not possible to designate third countries generally as "safe", without considering the individual case.
There are significant concerns about the effectiveness in practice of asylum procedures in the countries of transit at the periphery of the Union, which raise questions about whether they can legitimately be considered "safe".
There are significant concerns about the effectiveness in practice of asylum procedures in the countries of transit at the periphery of the Union, which raise questions about whether they can legitimately be considered "safe".
Moreover the Directive allows Member States to remove asylum-seekers to any country willing to accept them, without any consideration of merits of their claims.
Moreover the Directive allows Member States to remove asylum-seekers to any country willing to accept them, without any consideration of merits of their claims.
It allows Member States to shift their responsibilities to third countries, regardless of whether the applicant will be protected against refoulement and treated on a case by case basis .
It allows Member States to shift their responsibilities to third countries, regardless of whether the applicant will be protected against refoulement and treated on a case by case basis .
The concepts of effective remedy (Článek 38) and accelerated procedures (Článeks 23-25) as well as the procedures on borders (Case of border procedures - Článek 35) have to be revised substantially.
The concepts of effective remedy (article 38) and accelerated procedures (articles 23-25) as well as the procedures on borders (Case of border procedures - article 35) have to be revised substantially.
This as well with regard to a future repatriation agreement :
This as well with regard to a future repatriation agreement :
Ø The Článek about the effective remedy does not guarantee that the appeal process has suspensive effect.
Ø The article about the effective remedy does not guarantee that the appeal process has suspensive effect.
It means that there is not an explicit right for all asylum seekers to remain in the asylum country waiting for the outcome of the appeal procedure.
It means that there is not an explicit right for all asylum seekers to remain in the asylum country waiting for the outcome of the appeal procedure.
This question is left to the Member States' discretion.
This question is left to the Member States' discretion.
Such a provision would appear to be contrary to the Geneva Convention and does not insure the respect for the principle of " non-refoulement "
Such a provision would appear to be contrary to the Geneva Convention and does not insure the respect for the principle of " non-refoulement "
Ø The Directive allows fast-track procedures in a too wide range of cases.
Ø The Directive allows fast-track procedures in a too wide range of cases.
Accelerated, inadmissibility and special procedures include several exceptions from basic safeguards, especially when an application is considered ill founded.
Accelerated, inadmissibility and special procedures include several exceptions from basic safeguards, especially when an application is considered ill founded.
Given the extremely broad definition of “manifestly unfounded claims”, Amnesty International fears that most of the applications (more than 80%) will be processed under a fast-track procedure, thus implying that lower procedural safeguards will apply.
Given the extremely broad definition of “manifestly unfounded claims”, Amnesty International fears that most of the applications (more than 80%) will be processed under a fast-track procedure, thus implying that lower procedural safeguards will apply.
But refugees might not be able to provide consistent or comprehensive answers for serious personal and human reasons, like trauma (for example war, post-traumatic stress, sexual violence, etc.).
But refugees might not be able to provide consistent or comprehensive answers for serious personal and human reasons, like trauma (for example war, post-traumatic stress, sexual violence, etc.).
Ø The Directive permit member States to apply border procedures which entail less then minimum procedural safeguards for people requesting asylum at border or transit zones.
Ø The Directive permit member States to apply border procedures which entail less then minimum procedural safeguards for people requesting asylum at border or transit zones.
This practices place inappropriate powers and responsibilities in the hands of border guards and confuses migration control objectives with protection of refugees.
This practices place inappropriate powers and responsibilities in the hands of border guards and confuses migration control objectives with protection of refugees.
The rapporteur has specific doubts concerning the regulations for children and juveniles in the framework of the refugee policy laid down in the Council's conclusion :
The rapporteur has specific doubts concerning the regulations for children and juveniles in the framework of the refugee policy laid down in the Council's conclusion :
The Directive states that Member States may "refrain from apboding a representative where the unaccompanied minor is 16 years old or older...".According to the UN-Convention on the Rights of the Child, any person under age 18 should be considered as a child, without differentiation in rights for those over 16.
The Directive states that Member States may "refrain from appointing a representative where the unaccompanied minor is 16 years old or older...".According to the UN-Convention on the Rights of the Child, any person under age 18 should be considered as a child, without differentiation in rights for those over 16.
Moreover the fact that the child is or has been married does not necessarily indicate that she/he is not in need of a representative.
Moreover the fact that the child is or has been married does not necessarily indicate that she/he is not in need of a representative.
Marriage in some countries is not related to the maturity of the child.
Marriage in some countries is not related to the maturity of the child.
Conclusion of the rapporteur
Conclusion of the rapporteur
The rapporteur is of the opinion that only if the doubts mentioned before are met, there will be a possibility for a common asylum policy in the European Union which is legitimised by our citizens and which meets the needs of refugees for protection in like manner.
The rapporteur is of the opinion that only if the doubts mentioned before are met, there will be a possibility for a common asylum policy in the European Union which is legitimised by our citizens and which meets the needs of refugees for protection in like manner.
The Parliament is the legitimate representative of the citizens.
The Parliament is the legitimate representative of the citizens.
Only with a transparent and democratic procedure, which corresponds to the difficulty of the subject, can we attain the constant consent of the people.
Only with a transparent and democratic procedure, which corresponds to the difficulty of the subject, can we attain the constant consent of the people.
k pozměněnému návrhu směrnice Rady o minimálních normách pro postupy členských států při přiznávání a odnímání právního postavení uprchlíka
on the amended proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status
According to the Conclusions of the Presidency at the Tampere European Council in October 1999, restated by the Hague Programme adopted by the Brussels European Council in November 2004, a common European asylum system is to include, in the short term, a clear and workable determination of the State responsible for the examination of an asylum application, common standards for a fair and efficient asylum procedure, common minimum conditions of reception of asylum seekers and the approximation of rules on the recognition and content of the refugee status.
According to the Conclusions of the Presidency at the Tampere European Council in October 1999, restated by the Hague Programme adopted by the Brussels European Council in November 2004, a common European asylum system is to include, in the short term, a clear and workable determination of the State responsible for the examination of an asylum application, common standards for a fair and efficient asylum procedure, common minimum conditions of reception of asylum seekers and the approximation of rules on the recognition and content of the refugee status.
This is to be supplemented with measures on subsidiary forms of protection offering an appropriate status to any person in need of such protection.
This is to be supplemented with measures on subsidiary forms of protection offering an appropriate status to any person in need of such protection.
The European Commission presented its first proposal for a Directive
The European Commission presented its first proposal for a Directive
KOM(2000)0578 . on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status in September 2000.
COM(2000)0578 . on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status in September 2000.
On 20 September 2001, the European Parliament adopted the Watson report, approving the Commission proposal with 106 amendments.
On 20 September 2001, the European Parliament adopted the Watson report, approving the Commission proposal with 106 amendments.
The negotiations in the Council did not produce an agreement on the basis of that draft and in December 2001 the European Council, in the Laeken declaration, requested the Commission to bring forward a modified proposal.
The negotiations in the Council did not produce an agreement on the basis of that draft and in December 2001 the European Council, in the Laeken declaration, requested the Commission to bring forward a modified proposal.
The modified draft proposal for a directive was issued on 18 June 2002
The modified draft proposal for a directive was issued on 18 June 2002
KOM(2002)0326 . and after almost two years of negotiations the Council agreed on a "general approach"
COM(2002)0326 . and after almost two years of negotiations the Council agreed on a "general approach"
CSL 14203/04, 9. listopad 2004 on which it decided to consult again the Parliament, which was done on 19 November 2004.
CSL 14203/04, 9.11.2004 on which it decided to consult the Parliament again, which was done on 19 November 2004.
Therefore, the amendments proposed in this opinion refer to the modified draft proposal for a directive, as amended by the Council in its "general approach".
Therefore, the amendments proposed in this opinion refer to the modified draft proposal for a directive, as amended by the Council in its "general approach".
The Directive shall be adopted, according to Article TEC 63.1 (d), by consultation procedure of the Parliament and by unanimity vote in the Council.
The Directive is to be adopted, in accordance with Article 63(1)(d) TEC, by consultation procedure of the Parliament and by unanimity vote in the Council.
After the adoption of this directive, and according to Article TEC 67, all the legislation in this field shall be adopted by codecision procedure and majority voting in the Council.
After the adoption of this directive, and in accordance with Article 67 TEC, all the legislation in this field is to be adopted by codecision procedure and majority voting in the Council.
It is your draftperson's view that the opinion of the Committee on Development should restrict itself to the areas where its competencies might be affected, and, notably, areas such us the political dialogue with developing countries, the promotion of democratic values, good governance and human rights in developing countries, and matters relating to the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.
It is your draftperson's view that the opinion of the Committee on Development should be confined to the areas where its competencies might be affected, and, notably, areas such as the political dialogue with developing countries, the promotion of democratic values, good governance and human rights in developing countries, and matters relating to the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.
That is the reason why the opinion submitted for the consideration of the Committee on Development does not enter into more technical areas failing under the direct competency of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs as the leading Committee.
That is the reason why the opinion submitted for the consideration of the Committee on Development does not enter into more technical areas falling under the direct competency of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs as the leading Committee.
Having said that, your draftsperson considers that the Commission modified proposal, as amended by the "general approach" adopted by the Council on 29 of April 2004, is a considerable step back compared to the initial proposal and to the objectives set by the Commission itself: " the main aim of this Directive is to introduce a minimum framework in the European Community on procedures for the determination of refugee status, ensuring that no Member State expels or returns an applicant for asylum in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion"
Having said that, your draftsperson considers that the modified Commission proposal, as amended by the 'general approach' adopted by the Council on 29 April 2004, is a considerable step back compared to the initial proposal and to the objectives set by the Commission itself: ' the main aim of this Directive is to introduce a minimum framework in the European Community on procedures for the determination of refugee status, ensuring that no Member State expels or returns an applicant for asylum in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion'
In particular, your draftsperson would like to draw the Members' attention to the fact that the "general approach" adopted by the Council provides for possibilities to Members States to derogate from almost every provision, and specially from the basic principles and guarantees established in Chapter II of the directive (Article 24).
In particular, your draftsperson would like to draw the Members' attention to the fact that the 'general approach' adopted by the Council provides for possibilities for Member States to derogate from almost every provision, and especially from the basic principles and guarantees established in Chapter II of the directive (Article 24).
Under these circumstances, the rights and guarantees of applicants become fragile, and the basis for appeals might always be turned down as unfounded.
Under these circumstances, the rights and guarantees of applicants become fragile, and the basis for appeals might always be turned down as unfounded.
Your draftsman decided not to present amendments related to these issues at this stage, since it would imply substantial changes of technical character which are better dealt by other Committees (such as LIBE or JURI).
Your draftsman has decided not to present amendments related to these issues at this stage, since it would involve substantial changes of a technical character which are better dealt by other Committees (such as LIBE or JURI).
However, in case such Committees do not integrate these concerns, your draftsman will consider presenting them either in the Development Committee at a later stage, as amendments, or in plenary.
However, in the event that such Committees do not take account of these concerns, your draftsman will consider presenting them either in the Development Committee at a later stage, as amendments, or in plenary.
Znění navržené Komisí
Text proposed by the Council
a) Tato směrnice musí být provedena ve vnitrostátním právu s náležitým ohledem na základní lidská práva a principy, které jsou zakotveny především v Chartě základních práv Evropské unie jako obecné principy práva Společenství.
(a) This Directive shall be implemented and transposed into national legislation with due respect for fundamental human rights and principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as general principles of Community law.
Je třeba brát ohled na mezinárodní právo a dohody Organizace spojených národů.
International law and United Nations agreements shall be observed.