Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-08-Speech-1-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020408.9.1-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a regulation to replace the Dublin Convention with an instrument of Community law is, as laid down by Article 63 of the Treaty, part of a series of measures requested at Tampere and which includes, in addition to this regulation, three proposals for directives on, respectively, common minimum standards on asylum procedures, common minimum conditions on the reception of asylum seekers, and the admission criteria to refugee status or on subsidiary forms of protection and the content of the refugee status. Before these proposals were drawn up, broad consultation was carried out, on the basis of the working document issued by the Commission services, in conjunction with the Member States, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and non-governmental organisations. Thanks to the excellent work of the rapporteur, Mr Marinho, whom I would like to congratulate, the European Parliament will also contribute to this dossier.
It is true that if we worked within the framework of a single, fully harmonised asylum system, the most practical solution would perhaps be to recognise the responsibility of the State in which the application was made. However, we do not have this single system. We are currently working within a framework where harmonisation is based on common minimum standards. We must acknowledge the fact that since harmonisation is, at present, very limited, the most practical and most effective solution is to accept that the State responsible for the entry of refugees onto the European Union’s territory must be the State which has the final say on the asylum application, and this must be done in a spirit of solidarity and loyal cooperation. The Commission’s proposal is therefore based on the same principle as the Dublin Convention. The responsibility for examining an asylum application lies with the Member State which played the greatest part in the applicant’s entry into or residence on the territory of the European Union, subject to exceptions designed to protect family group unity.
We must acknowledge, however, that the Dublin Convention has not had the effects that we anticipated. We must take on board the lessons of the past. That is why the proposal includes a number of innovations, such as new provisions emphasising each Member State’s responsibility vis-à-vis all its partners in the Union when it allows illegal residents to remain on its territory; much shorter procedural deadlines to ensure that applications for asylum are processed rapidly in the interests of genuine asylum seekers, and so that applicants will not have to wait too long before they receive a decision on their asylum application; extended deadlines for implementing transfers of those concerned to the Member State responsible so as to allow for the practical difficulties arising in connection with such transfers and new provisions aimed at preserving the unity of asylum seekers’ families, in so far as this is compatible with the other objectives of asylum and immigration policy.
In answer to Mr Olle Schmidt’s question, first of all, this allows for the existence of clear rules on the responsibility of the Member State; secondly, it gives clarification, which has been added to our proposal, on the standard of proof required for determining the State responsible, and finally, it stipulates rules on the subsidiary responsibility of the State which is negligent.
The Commission is aware that no system used for determining responsibility in asylum matters can claim to be perfect. As Mrs Sbarbati points out in her report for the Committee on Petitions, we have attempted to find a balance, which is fairly difficult, I admit, between, firstly, the legitimate interests of the Member States in combating the phenomenon of ‘asylum shopping’ and the same individual submitting multiple applications in order to remain on European Union territory for as long as possible and, secondly, the interests of asylum applicants to have their application examined within reasonable time limits and so that they are not kept apart from their family members for lengthy periods, when there is no real reason why their application should not be examined in the same Member State.
The Commission is able to accept the amendments which were proposed by the rapporteur and which, in our view, improve the text. They also make the Commission’s intentions behind this text more effective. It will come as no surprise, I am sure, when I say that the Commission is not in favour of the amendments that were inspired by another logic, which, however respectable, mar the proposal and contradict the Commission’s clear intention to draft a practical, reasonable, effective text in the shortest time span possible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples