Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-24-Speech-2-344"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091124.33.2-344"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I have listened carefully to the speakers, but I would nevertheless like to share a number of queries and concerns regarding the matter before us and, to do so, I will inevitably draw on two recent examples.
The first concerns the deportation of 27 Afghans to Kabul, as part of the group deportation organised by France and the United Kingdom. I would like to know whether the Commission and the Council believe that Afghanistan is a country in which the physical integrity of deported persons is guaranteed.
The Commission has just told us that it was unable to guarantee that these deportations were carried out upon verification that the persons concerned had not submitted an application for international protection, or indeed in compliance with each stage of this procedure of examining their application, if it exists.
The second example concerns the deportation by Germany, Belgium and Austria of Roma to Kosovo, with which these countries have concluded readmission agreements even though the UNHCR, in its guidelines of 9 November, considers that, and I quote, ‘the Roma, inhabiting any part of Kosovo, continue to face serious restrictions to their freedom of movement and the exercise of fundamental human rights [...] and there are reports of threats and physical violence perpetrated against these communities’.
With this in mind, I would ask for clarification on three points. Why is Article 15(c) of the 2004 Qualification Directive, which grants the right to subsidiary protection to persons who are subject to, and I quote, ‘serious and individual threat [...] by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict’ so poorly implemented?
Question two: can the idea that it is legitimate to deport persons who are residing illegally on EU soil because they have not submitted an application for international protection – even though we know that, due to the Dublin II regulation, many potential asylum seekers do not submit these applications in the State in which they first arrive because their chances of seeing the procedure succeed are slim and the reception conditions are appalling – be deemed sufficient?
Lastly, question three: should the Member States confirm the decision of the Council of 29 and 30 October to examine the possibility of chartering regular common return flights financed by the Frontex agency, do they intend, at the same time, to agree on a European list of safe countries and to take swift action in regard to a common asylum system that will enable the conditions for examining, granting and exercising refugee status to be harmonised at a higher level?"@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples