Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

Change 9

RemovedCertain factors should be taken into account when considering whether indiscriminate violence exists. The list is not exhaustive.

AddedRecital 36: (36) As regards the required proof in relation to the existence of a serious threat to the life or person of an applicant, in accordance with relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union36 and the European Court of Human Rights, the required level of harm needs not be equivalent to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. However, the level of indiscriminate violence required to substantiate the application is lower if the applicant is able to show that he is specifically affected by reason of factors particular to his personal circumstance. Moreover, the existence of a serious threat should be established by the determining authorities solely on account of the presence of the applicant on the territory or relevant part of the territory of the country of origin provided the degree of indiscriminate violence characterising the armed conflict taking place reaches such a high level that there are substantial grounds for believing that a civilian, returned to the country of origin or to the relevant part of country of origin, would, solely on account of his or her presence on the territory of that country or region, face a real risk of being subject to the serious threat.

RemovedRecital 36 a (new): (36a) A person in need of protection because he or she is unable to return to his or her country of origin due to a natural or man-made disaster should also be eligible to qualify for protection under this Regulation.

RemovedPersons or groups of persons, who, for compelling reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment that adversely affect their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes and are in search and need of protection should qualify under this Regulation for international protection in the European Union.

Change 10

RemovedIt is irrelevant whether the residence permit or a travel document is issued for the first time or renewed, as it should always comply with the respective Regulations.

AddedRecital 38: (38) Family members, due to their close relationship to the refugee, will normally be vulnerable to acts of persecution in such a manner that could be the basis for international protection. Provided they do not qualify for international protection, for the purpose of maintaining family unity, family members, including siblings, who are present in the same Member State in relation to the application for international protection, shall be entitled to claim a residence permit and the same rights accorded to beneficiaries of international protection. Without prejudice to the provisions related to maintaining family unity in this Regulation, where the situation falls within the scope of Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification and the conditions for reunification set out thereof are fulfilled, family members of the beneficiary of international protection who do not individually qualify for such protection should be granted residence permits and rights in accordance with that Directive. This Regulation shall be applied without prejudice to Directive 2004/38/EC.

Change 11

ChangedRecital 39: (39) With a view to ascertaining whether beneficiaries of international protection are still in need of protection, determining authorities mightshould, in particular, review the granted status when a significant relevant change in the beneficiaries' country of origin occurs as indicated by common analysis and guidance on the situation in the country of origin provided at Union level by the Agency and the European networks on country of origin information in accordance with Articles 8 and 10 of Regulation37 .Regulation37.

Change 12

RemovedA systematic review of protection needs would prove highly resource-intensive for the determining authorities of the Member States. It is not at all the case that the authorities responsible for decisions on the need for international protection are the same authorities as those which issue residence permits. It is also important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary.

AddedRecital 40: (40) When assessing a change of circumstances in the third country concerned, the competent authorities of the Member States shall verify, having regard to the individual situation of the beneficiary of international protection, that the actor or actors of protection in that country have taken necessary steps to prevent the persecution, that they therefore operate, inter alia, an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution and that the national concerned will have access to such protection, can safely gain admittance to the country and can reasonably be expected to settle there if the refugee status ceases to exist.

Change 13

RemovedRecital 42: (42) Beneficiaries of international protection should reside in the Member State which granted them protection. Those beneficiaries who are in possession of a valid travel document and a residence permit issued by a Member State applying the Schengen acquis in full, should be allowed to enter into and move freely within the territory of the Member States applying the Schengen acquis in full, within the authorised period of stay in accordance with Schengen Borders Code38 and with Article 21 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement39 . Beneficiaries of international protection can equally apply to reside in a Member State other than the Member State which granted protection, in accordance with relevant EU rules, notably on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly skilled employment40 and national rules; however, this does not imply any transfer of the international protection and related rights.

AddedRecital 41 a (new): (41a) The principle of the benefit of the doubt reflects the recognition of the considerable difficulties that applicants face in obtaining and providing evidence to support their claim. The general legal principle is that the burden of proof lies with the applicant for international protection and that the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts is shared between the applicant and the determining authority. However, the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt where aspects of his or her statements are not supported by documentary or other evidence, where he or she has made a genuine effort to substantiate his or her application and has submitted all relevant elements at his or her disposal, and where his or her statements are found to be coherent and plausible.

RemovedA recital need not contain such detailed elements regarding periods of time which could be subject to revision and which are part of the enacting provisions in the articles. The recitals should rather lay down the rationale of the main provisions of the act.

AddedRecital 42: (42) Beneficiaries of international protection should reside in the Member State which granted them protection. Those beneficiaries who are in possession of a valid travel document and a residence permit issued by a Member State applying the Schengen acquis in full, should be allowed to enter into and move freely within the territory of the Member States applying the Schengen acquis in full, within the authorised period of stay in accordance with Schengen Borders Code38 and with Article 21 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement39. Beneficiaries of international protection can equally apply to reside in a Member State other than the Member State which granted protection, in accordance with relevant EU rules, notably on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly skilled employment40 and national rules; however, this does not imply any transfer of the international protection and related rights.

Change 14

ChangedRecital 43: (43) Beneficiaries of international protection, if found in a Member State other than the Member State having granted them protection without fulfilling the conditions of stay or reside, should be taken back by the Member State responsible in accordance with the procedure laid down by Regulation41Regulation41. Unaccompanied minors who are beneficiaries of international protection should only be taken back by the Member State responsible in accordance with the procedure laid down by Regulation [Dublin Regulation].

Change 15

RemovedIn line with the Rapporteur's approach to encouraging beneficiaries to remain and integrate in the Member State that grants international protection, prevention of secondary movement should be a welcome side product of such a policy but not the driver.

Change 16

RemovedSecondary movement of beneficiaries of international protection should be discouraged not by promoting sanctions against beneficiaries but by encouraging them to remain in the Member State which grants protection and integrate there. One such form of encouragement is to harmonise the duration of the residence permits granted to beneficiaries of international protection for a sufficiently long period of time. Such a harmonised period should take account of current practices across the Member States.

AddedRecital 45: (45) The notion of national security and public order covers cases in which a third-country national belongs to an association which supports international terrorism. The notion of particularly serious crime includes offences such as participation in a criminal organisation, terrorism, trafficking in human beings, sexual exploitation of children, murder, grievous bodily injury, illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives, corruption, rape, and crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

RemovedRecital 45: (45) The notion of national security and public order also covers cases in which a third-country national belongs to an association which supports international terrorism.

AddedRecital 47: deleted

RemovedThe notion of supporting an association that in turn supports terrorism is too vague a concept to provide legal clarity.

AddedRecital 48: (48) Competent authorities may restrict the access to employed or self-employed activities as regard posts which involve the exercise of public authority, and responsibility for safeguarding the general interest of the State or other public authorities.

Change 17

RemovedThe Rapporteur believes that integration is one of the key elements of enhancing the proper functioning of the Common European Asylum System. If beneficiaries are properly integrated into their host societies, incentives to engage in secondary movements should be reduced significantly.

AddedRecital 51: (51) In addition, especially to avoid social hardship, it is appropriate to provide beneficiaries of international protection with social assistance without discrimination. While the basis of protection may result in a different status determination, there is no difference in the material needs of the individual protected. In order to facilitate their integration, Member States should be given the possibility to make the access to certain types of social assistances specified in national law, conditional on the effective participation of the beneficiary of international protection in integration measures.

RemovedRecital 51: (51) In addition, especially to avoid social hardship, it is appropriate to provide beneficiaries of international protection with social assistance without discrimination. In order to facilitate their integration, Member States should be given the possibility to make the access to certain types of social assistances specified in national law conditional on the effective participation of the beneficiary of international protection in integration measures.

AddedRecital 52: (52) Access to healthcare, including both physical and mental healthcare, as well as sexual and reproductive healthcare, should be ensured to beneficiaries of international protection.

RemovedIt is not at all clear why persons who are in need of protection and who are granted subsidiary protection should not receive the social assistance enjoyed by other persons needing international protection. There should be no unequal treatment between persons in need of international protection. This is both legally dubious and administratively unhelpful. Once the need for protection has been established these persons all have the same social needs in the hosting Member State.

AddedRecital 52 a (new): (52a) Beneficiaries of international protection should enjoy access to goods and services and to the supply of goods and services made available to the public, including information and counselling services provided by employment offices.

Change 18

ChangedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point b: (b) the minor children of the couples referred to in point (a) or of the beneficiary of international protectionprotection, the adult children for whom they have charge, regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined or recognised under national law;law, as well as the children for whom they hold parental responsibility;

Change 19

RemovedThe Rapporteur does not believe that the married or unmarried status of children should be a factor when determining the members of a family.

AddedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point c: (c) where the beneficiary of international protection is a minor, the father, mother or another adult responsible for that beneficiary, whether by law or by practice of the Member State concerned;

Change 20

ChangedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 910: –(10) point‘minor’ c:means (c)a wherethird-country thenational beneficiaryor isstateless aperson minor,below the father,age motherof or18 anotheryears. adultThis responsibleis forto thebe beneficiary,assessed, whetherwhere byapplicable, lawat the time his or byher practiceapplication offor theinternational Memberprotection Stateis concerned;made;

Change 21

RemovedThe Rapporteur does not believe that the married or unmarried status of children should be a factor when determining who the family members are.

AddedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 15: deleted

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point c a (new): (ca) the sibling or siblings of the beneficiary of international protection;

AddedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 16: (16) ‘determining authority’ means any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body in a Member State responsible for examining applications for international protection and competent to take decisions at first instance in such cases;

RemovedThis indent is taken from the definition of "family members" proposed in the new recast Dublin Regulation.

Change 22

RemovedHarmonisation ofdefinitions and reference to UNCRC, Art. 3.

AddedArticle 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new): Without prejudice to paragraph 1, Member States shall keep the possibility to grant family members the refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with their national laws, regardless of whether they are subject to a risk of persecution or serious harm, in order to establish a uniform legal status within the family.

Change 23

ChangedArticle 4 – paragraph 1: 1. The applicant shall submit all the elements available to him or her which substantiate the application for international protection. The applicant shall cooperate with the determining authority andthroughout the applicantprocedure, shallincluding cooperateduring throughoutthe assessment of the procedure.relevant elements of the application. The applicant shall remain present and available throughout the procedure. Where, due to extenuating circumstances, the applicant is not available at any point during the procedure, those extenuating circumstances shall be taken into account when any decision is taken concerning the applicant or his or her application for international protection.

Change 24

RemovedIn line with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is incumbent on the determining authorities to cooperate with the applicant when determining the relevant elements of the case. This is also the wording used in Article 4(1) of the existing Directive.

AddedArticle 4 – paragraph 2: 2. The elements referred to in paragraph 1 shall consist of the applicant’s statements and all the documentation at the applicant’s disposal regarding the applicant’s age, background, including that of relevant relatives, identity, nationality(ies), country(ies) and place(s) of previous residence, previous applications [for international protection and results of any resettlement procedure, travel routes, travel documents and the reasons for applying for international protection.

Change 25

AddedArticle 4 – paragraph 4: 4. The fact that an applicant has already been subject to persecution or serious harm, or to direct threats of such persecution or such harm, shall be considered a serious indication of the applicant’s well-founded fear of persecution or real risk of suffering serious harm.

AddedArticle 4 – paragraph 5 – introductory part: 5. Where aspects of the applicant’s statements are not supported by documentary or other evidence, no additional evidence shall be required in respect of those aspects and the applicant shall be granted the benefit of the doubt where the following conditions are met:

Change 26

AddedArticle 4 – paragraph 5 – point b: (b) all relevant elements at the applicant's disposal have been submitted

Change 27

RemovedThere are many reasons why an applicant might not seek international protection immediately. Whether the applicant has applied for international protection at the earliest moment possible should not determine the weight attached to an applicant’s statements

AddedArticle 5 – paragraph 3: 3. Provided that any decision on the application for international protection taken is fully in line with the Geneva Convention, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, an applicant who files a subsequent application in accordance with Article 42 of Regulation (EU)XXX/XXX [Procedures regulation] may be refused refugee status or subsidiary protection status if the risk of persecution or the serious harm is based on circumstances which the applicant has created by his or her own decision since leaving the country of origin for the sole purpose of being granted international protection. This shall exclude any circumstances independent of the applicant's will, including but not limited to his or her sexual orientation and religious beliefs, which the applicant may have concealed to various degrees while in the country of origin.

RemovedArticle 5 – paragraph 3: 3. Provided that any decision taken is fully in line with the Geneva Convention, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, an applicant who files a subsequent application in accordance with Article 42 of Regulation (EU)XXX/XXX [Procedures regulation] may be refused refugee status or subsidiary protection status if the risk of persecution or the serious harm is based on circumstances which the applicant has created by his or her own decision since leaving the country of origin.

AddedArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part: Actors of persecution or serious harm can be:

RemovedThe case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union makes it clear that the applicant is not required to act discreetly, abstain from religious practice or conceal their sexual orientation to be entitled to international protection. If international protection is to be refused, then any such refusal must be fully in line with the Geneva Convention and with the case-law of the CJEU and the ECtHR.

AddedArticle 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part: 1. Protection against persecution or serious harm can only be provided by:

Change 28

ChangedArticle 7 – paragraph 1 – point b: (b) parties or organisations,organisations which are mandated by the State, including internationalState organisations,and controllingcontrol the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State,State.

Change 29

RemovedArticle 1D of Geneva convention also applies to persons who receive protection by the UNHCR which has to be mandated by the State in order to be present on the territory of that State. Furthermore, non-State actors should not be considered as actors of protection, unless they have been mandated by the State specifically to do so, as they cannot be held accountable under international law, they could only provide protection which is temporary and limited in its effectiveness.

AddedArticle 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2: as long as they are willing and able to provide full, effective and durable protection against persecution or serious harm.

RemovedArticle 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2: as long as they are willing and able to provide protection in accordance with paragraph 2.

AddedArticle 7 – paragraph 2: deleted

RemovedProtection for the applicant must be demonstrated in practice and in that particular case, and not merely in principle or in general terms. It should be demonstrated by the competent authority that the protection is not only temporary and limited in its effectiveness.

AddedArticle 7 – paragraph 3: 3. When assessing whether an international organisation controls a State or a substantial part of its territory and provides protection as referred to in paragraph 2, determining authorities may take into account any guidance provided in relevant Union law, in particular available Union level country of origin information and the common analysis of country of origin information referred to in Articles 8 and 10 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XX [ Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum ].

Change 30

RemovedThe internal protection alternative should not be relied upon by Member States in circumstances where the persecution or serious harm emanates from the State or agents associated with the State. In addition, as the application of the concept of internal protection varies greatly among Member States and as it is not uniformly used, it should remain optional for Member States.

AddedArticle 8 – paragraph 1 – point b: (b) has access to full, effective and durable protection against persecution or serious harm.

Change 31

ChangedArticle 8 – paragraph 2: 2. TheWithout prejudice to Article 4(1), the burden of demonstrating the availability of internal protection shall rest on the determining authority. That shall not preclude the applicant from presenting evidence to rebut any finding by the determining authority that internal protection is available. The applicant shall not be required to prove that, before seeking international protection, he or she has exhausted all possibilities to obtain protection in his or her country of origin.

Change 32

RemovedThere are no good reasons why the decision on availability of internal protection should come after the determining authority has already decided that the applicant would otherwise be in need of protection. It should be part of the overall assessment of the applicant’s need for protection. In addition, while the Rapporteur welcomes the burden of proof being placed clearly on the determining authority, this should not preclude the applicant from rebutting any finding that internal protection would be available to him or her.

AddedArticle 8 – paragraph 4: 4. When considering the general circumstances prevailing in that part of the country which is the source of the protection as referred to in Article 7, the accessibility, effectiveness and durability of that protection shall be taken into account. When considering personal circumstances of the applicant, health, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnic origin, membership of a national minority and social status shall in particular be taken into account together with an assessment of whether living in the part of the country of origin regarded as safe would not impose undue hardship on the applicant.

AddedArticle 8 – paragraph 4 a (new): 4a. Any decision not to provide international protection to a minor, whether accompanied or not, based on the availability of internal protection, shall be preceded by a formal procedure to determine the best interests of the minor. Where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the availability of appropriate care, custodial arrangements and durable solutions for his or her development should be part of the assessment of whether the protection is effectively guaranteed within the area where internal protection is presumed to exist.

AddedArticle 9 – paragraph 1 – point a: (a) it is sufficiently serious by its nature or repetition as to constitute a severe violation of human rights, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; or

AddedArticle 9 – paragraph 2 – point a: (a) acts of physical or mental violence, including acts of sexual violence or trafficking for sexual exploitation;

AddedArticle 9 – paragraph 2 – point e: (e) prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service on moral, religious or political grounds or due to belonging to a particular ethnic group or holding a particular citizenship and, in particular, where performing military service would include crimes or acts falling within the scope of the grounds for exclusion as set out in Article 12(2);

Change 33

RemovedThe two indents describe two ways in which a particular social group might exist. The indents should therefore be alternative and not cumulative.

AddedArticle 10 – paragraph 1 – point d – subparagraph 2: depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, the concept shall include a group based on a common characteristic of sexual orientation and gender related aspects, including gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics, and the fact of having been a victim of trafficking for sexual exploitation. Those aspects shall be given due consideration for the purposes of determining membership of a particular social group or identifying a characteristic of such a group;

RemovedArticle 10 – paragraph 1 – point d – subparagraph 2: depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, the concept shall include a group based on a common characteristic of sexual orientation and gender related aspects, including gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics. Those aspects shall be given due consideration for the purposes of determining membership of a particular social group or identifying a characteristic of such a group;

RemovedLinking sexual orientation to acts considered criminal is out of place and should be removed. Sexual orientation in legislation can never mean acts considered to be criminal and has no legal added-value since the concept of sexual orientation is clearly defined in European treaties and EU law, and thus also recognised in national law.

Change 34

RemovedThe term 'identity' is somewhat restrictive. It may be a person's conscience that leads him or her to have a well-founded fear of being persecuted.

AddedArticle 11 – paragraph 2 – point b: (b) shall take into account precise and up-to-date information obtained from all relevant sources, including Union level country of origin information and common analysis of country of origin information referred to in Articles 8 and 10 of the Regulation (EU) No XXX/XX [Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum] or information and guidance issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee.

Change 35

ChangedArticle 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part: 1. A third-country national or a stateless person shall be excluded from being a refugee under the scope of this Regulation if:

Change 36

RemovedArticle 1(D) of the Geneva Convention does not deny the status of ‘refugee’ to certain categories of persons. It simply deprives them of the rights and benefits of the Convention. As this Article is also inspired by Article 1(D) of the Geneva Convention, the same approach should be taken in this Regulation.

AddedArticle 12 – paragraph 2 – point c: (c) he or she has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations as set out in the Preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, including convictions on the grounds of participation in the activities of a terrorist group.

AddedArticle 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new): The determining authority may apply this paragraph only after it has undertaken, for each individual case, an assessment of the specific facts brought to its attention, with a view to determining whether there are serious reasons for considering that the acts committed by the person in question, who otherwise satisfies the qualifying conditions for refugee status, fall within the scope of points (a), (b) or (c) of the first subparagraph.

AddedArticle 12 – paragraph 3 a (new): 3a. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to minors.

Change 37

RemovedThe case-law of the CJEU, referred to in Recital 31, interprets the provisions of the existing Article 12(2)(b) and (c). Adding an additional paragraph to the Article merely adds confusion. The interpretation of the CJEU is laid out in Recital 31 and that is clear and sufficient to interpret Article 12(2)(b) and (c) with regard to terrorism and particularly cruel actions. Paragraph 5 should thus be deleted.

Change 38

RemovedThe Commission's proposed text in Article 12(6) is terribly confusing insofar as it refers to case law. The principle of proportionality is a general principle of Union law. The CJEU, in its case-law, has stated that whether someone is refused refugee status on the grounds laid down in Article 12 depends on an assessment of the “seriousness of the acts committed”, which in turn requires taking account of “all the circumstances surrounding the acts in question and the situation of that person”. This inevitably requires a proportionality test. The Commission proposal is misleading in that regard and should be deleted.

Change 39

RemovedArticle 2(14) of this proposed Regulation provides for a definition of "withdrawal of international protection", which is intended to mean "the decision of competent authority to revoke, end or refuse to renew the refugee or subsidiary protection status". Given that definition, it is appropriate to use the expression "withdrawal of international protection" throughout the Articles and not to repeat constantly "revocation of, ending of or refusal to renew".

Change 40

RemovedAmendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.

AddedArticle 14 – paragraph 1 – point d: (d) there are reasonable grounds for regarding that he or she, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the security of the Member State in which he or she is present;

RemovedArticle 14 – paragraph 1 – point d: (d) there are reasonable grounds for regarding him or her as a danger to the security of the Member State in which he or she is present after having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime;

RemovedThere are no grounds in the Geneva Convention which correspond to the grounds for withdrawal set out in Article 14(1)(d) and (e). The Rapporteur believes they should be merged as it is the fact of having been convicted of a serious crime which would provide the 'reasonable grounds' for determining that the refugee is a danger to the security of the Member State in question.

Change 41

RemovedThere are no grounds in the Geneva Convention which correspond to the grounds for withdrawal set out in Article 14(1)(d) and (e). The Rapporteur believes they should be merged as it is the fact of having been convicted of a serious crime which would provide the 'reasonable grounds' for determining that the refugee is a danger to the security of the Member State in question.

Change 42

RemovedThe principle of non-refoulment is absolute according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the relevant case law of the CJEU and ECtHR. Therefore, no person should be returned if he or she would be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This additional paragraph is irrelevant and should be deleted.

AddedArticle 14 – paragraph 2: 2. In the situation referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1, the determining authority may decide not to grant status to a refugee, where such a decision has not yet been taken.

RemovedArticle 14 – paragraph 2: 2. In the situations referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1, the determining authority may decide not to grant status to a refugee, where such a decision has not yet been taken.

RemovedAmendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.

Change 43

RemovedAmendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.

AddedArticle 14 – paragraph 4: 4. Without prejudice to the duty of the refugee in accordance with Article 4(1) to disclose all the elements available to him or her which substantiate the application for international protection, the determining authority which has granted refugee status shall, on an individual basis, demonstrate that the person concerned has ceased to be or has never been a refugee for the reasons set out in paragraph 1 of this Article.

Change 44

RemovedAmendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.

AddedArticle 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part: In applying Article 14(1), the determining authority may review the refugee status, in particular where information on countries of origin at Union level as referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XX [Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum] and common analysis of country of origin information as referred to in Article 10 of that Regulation indicate a significant change in the country of origin which is relevant for the protection needs of the beneficiary.

RemovedArticle 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part: In applying Article 14(1), the determining authority may review the refugee status, in particular where information on countries of origin at Union level as referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XX [Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum] and common analysis of country of origin information as referred to in Article 10 of that Regulation indicate a significant change in the country of origin which is relevant for the protection needs of the applicant.

RemovedA systematic review of protection needs would prove highly resource-intensive for the determining authorities of the Member States. It is not at all the case that the authorities responsible for decisions on the need for international protection are the same authorities as those which issue residence permits. It is also important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary.

Change 45

RemovedThis point is merged in with the introductory part of paragraph 1.

Change 46

RemovedA systematic review of protection needs would prove highly resource-intensive for the determining authorities of the Member States. It is not at all the case that the authorities responsible for decisions on the need for international protection are the same authorities as those which issue residence permits. It is also important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary. This point should therefore be deleted.

AddedArticle 15 – paragraph 1 a (new): Paragraph 1 shall not apply to unaccompanied minors, unless it is in their best interests.

RemovedArticle 16 – paragraph 1 – point c: (c) a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict; or

AddedArticle 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part: Serious harm as referred to in Article 2 (5), consists solely of:

RemovedArticle 16 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new): (ca) a serious and individual threat to a civilian's life or person due to a natural or man-made disaster.

AddedArticle 16 – paragraph 1 – point b: (Does not affect the English version.)

Change 47

RemovedArticle 2(14) of this proposed Regulation provides for a definition of "withdrawal of international protection", which is intended to mean "the decision of competent authority to revoke, end or refuse to renew the refugee or subsidiary protection status". Given that definition, it is appropriate to use the expression "withdrawal of international protection" throughout the Articles and not to repeat constantly "revocation of, ending of or refusal to renew".

Change 48

RemovedAmendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.

AddedArticle 20 – paragraph 1 – point c: (c) his or her misrepresentation or omission of facts relevant to the merits of the application for international protection was decisive for the granting of subsidiary protection status;

Change 49

RemovedThe principle of non-refoulment is absolute according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the relevant case law of the CJEU and ECtHR. Therefore, no person should be returned if he or she would be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This additional paragraph is irrelevant and should be deleted.

AddedArticle 20 – paragraph 2: 2. Without prejudice to the duty of the third-country national or stateless person pursuant to Article 4(1) to disclose all the elements available to him or her which substantiate the application for international protection, the Member State which has granted the subsidiary protection status shall, on an individual basis, demonstrate that the person concerned has ceased to be or is not eligible for subsidiary protection in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.

Change 50

RemovedAmendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.

AddedArticle 21 – paragraph 1: In applying Article 20(1), the determining authority may review the subsidiary protection status in particular where information on countries of origin at Union level as referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XX [Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum] and common analysis of country of origin information as referred to in Article 10 of that Regulation indicate a significant change in the country of origin which is relevant for the protection needs of the beneficiary.

RemovedArticle 21 – paragraph 1: In applying Article 20(1), the determining authority may review the subsidiary protection status, in particular where information on countries of origin at Union level as referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XX [Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum] and common analysis of country of origin information as referred to in Article 10 of that Regulation indicate a significant change in the country of origin which is relevant for the protection needs of the applicant.

RemovedA systematic review of protection needs would prove highly resource-intensive for the determining authorities of the Member States. It is not at all the case that the authorities responsible for decisions on the need for international protection are the same authorities as those which issue residence permits. It is also important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary.

Change 51

RemovedThis point is merged in with the introductory part of paragraph 1.

Change 52

RemovedA systematic review of protection needs would prove highly resource-intensive for the determining authorities of the Member States. It is not at all the case that the authorities responsible for decisions on the need for international protection are the same authorities as those which issue residence permits. It is also important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary. This point should therefore be deleted.

AddedArticle 21 – paragraph 1 a (new): Paragraph 1 shall not apply to unaccompanied minors, unless it is in their best interests.

Change 53

RemovedLinguistic amendment.

AddedArticle 22 – paragraph 3: deleted

RemovedArticle 22 – paragraph 5: 5. When applying this Regulation, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for the Member States.

AddedArticle 22 – paragraph 4: 4. When applying the provisions of this Chapter, the specific situation of persons with special needs such as minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with children, victims of human trafficking, persons with mental disorders and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence shall be taken into account provided an individual evaluation of their situation establishes that they have special needs.

Change 54

ChangedThe reference to the best interests of the childArticle as22 a– primaryparagraph consideration5: should5. coverWhen theapplying wholethis ofRegulation, the Regulation,best notinterests justof the provisionschild ofshall Chapterbe VIIa asprimary statedconsideration infor theMember article.States.

Change 55

AddedArticle 22 a (new): Article 22a / Member States shall ensure that any decisions taken by the determining authority under Chapters II, III, IV, V and VI of this Regulation may be subject to an appeal under procedures laid down in national law. At least in the last instance the possibility of an appeal or a review, in fact and law, before a judicial authority shall be granted.

Change 56

RemovedThe principle of non-refoulment is absolute according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the relevant case law of the CJEU and ECtHR therefore no person shall be returned if he or she would be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This paragraph is therefore irrelevant and should be deleted.

AddedArticle 24 – paragraph 1: The competent authorities shall provide beneficiaries of international protection with information on the rights and obligations relating to refugee status or subsidiary protection status, as soon as possible after that has been granted. That information shall be provided in a language that the beneficiary can understand and shall make explicit references to the consequences of not complying with the obligations outlined in Article 28 on movement within the Union and to all the rights related to integration set out in Section III of Chapter VII of this Regulation.

AddedArticle 24 – paragraph 2: The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 42 in order to supplement this Regulation by specifying the form and content of the information to be provided in accordance with the first subparagraph.

AddedArticle 25 – paragraph 1: 1. For the purposes of this Article and subject to its provisions, family members, as defined in Article 2(9), shall also include the siblings of the beneficiary of international protection. Those family members of a beneficiary of international protection who do not individually qualify for such protection shall be entitled to claim a residence permit in accordance with national procedures and insofar as this is compatible with the personal legal status of the family member.

AddedArticle 25 – paragraph 3 a (new): 3a. Member States may refuse to issue a residence permit to a spouse or unmarried partner in a stable relationship where it is shown that the marriage or partnership was contracted for the sole purpose of enabling the person concerned to enter or reside in the Member State.

Change 57

RemovedWhere Member States decide to enhance this article for maintaining family unity, they should not be restricted to those close relatives who were dependent in whole or part on the beneficiary. Discretion should remain with the Member States in that regard.

AddedArticle 26 – paragraph 1: 1. As soon as possible and in any event no later than 15 days after international protection has been granted, a residence permit shall be issued using the uniform format as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002. / The residence permit for beneficiaries of international protection shall have a period of validity of five years and be renewable thereafter for periods of five years. / (deleted)

Change 58

ChangedArticle 26 – paragraph 12 – pointintroductory a:part: (a)2. ForWithout beneficiariesprejudice ofto refugeeCouncil status,Directive the2003/109/EC, a residence permit shall have a period of validitynot ofbe fiverenewed yearsor andshall be renewable thereafter forrevoked periodsin ofthe fivefollowing years.cases:

Change 59

RemovedIn the interests of encouraging integration in the host Member State, and in offering a positive incentive for beneficiaries of international protection not to engage in secondary movements, the standard period of validity of residence permits should be extended and harmonised. It is important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary. The harmonised duration of residence permits granted to those in need of international protection should take full account of current practice across the Member States and should not be based on a 'race to the bottom' principle.

RemovedArticle 26 – paragraph 1 – point b: (b) For beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status, the residence permit shall have a period of validity of five years and be renewable thereafter for periods of five years.

RemovedIn the interests of encouraging integration in the host Member State, and in offering a positive incentive for beneficiaries of international protection not to engage in secondary movements, the standard period of validity of residence permits should be extended and harmonised. It is important not to unduly undermine integration prospects via the perception that protection may only be temporary. The harmonised duration of residence permits granted to those in need of international protection should take full account of current practice across the Member States and should not be based on a 'race to the bottom' principle.

Change 60

RemovedAmendment tabled for consistency with earlier amendments.

Change 61

RemovedThe principle of non-refoulment is absolute according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the relevant case law of the CJEU and ECtHR therefore no person shall be returned if he or she would be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This paragraph is therefore irrelevant and should be deleted.

Change 62

RemovedThe Commission proposes to delete the word ‘compelling’ which exists in the current Directive without providing good reason for such a deletion. Given that the paragraph deals with taking away the residence permit of someone who has been found to be in need of international protection, it is clear that the reasons for doing so should be ‘compelling’.

Change 63

RemovedIn line with the amendments proposed to the length of residence permits granted to beneficiaries of international protection, the validity of the travel documents issued to beneficiaries of international protection should also be extended. The validity period of such documents should take account of standard periods of validity for travel documents issued by Member States.

Change 64

RemovedIn line with the amendments proposed to the length of residence permits granted to beneficiaries of international protection, the validity of the travel documents issued to beneficiaries of international protection should also be extended. The validity period of such documents should take account of standard periods of validity for travel documents issued by Member States.

AddedArticle 27 – paragraph 3: 3. The documents referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be issued where compelling reasons of national security so require.

AddedArticle 28 – paragraph 1: 1. Beneficiaries of international protection shall enjoy freedom of movement within the territory of the Member State that granted international protection, including the right to choose their place of residence in that territory, under the same conditions and restrictions as those provided for other third-country nationals legally resident in their territories.

AddedArticle 28 – paragraph 2: deleted

AddedArticle 29 – paragraph 1: 1. Beneficiaries of international protection shall not have the right to reside in Member States other than the one which granted protection. This is without prejudice to their right to apply and be admitted to reside in other Member States pursuant to relevant provisions of Union law, including Council Directive 2009/50/EC1a and national law and their right to move freely in accordance with the conditions of Article 21 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement. / 1a Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment (OJ L 155, 18.6.2009, p. 17).

AddedArticle 30 – paragraph 2 – point a: (a) working conditions, including pay and dismissal, working hours, leave and holidays, family leave as well as health and safety requirements at the workplace;

Change 65

RemovedIt is not at all clear why persons who are in need of protection and who are granted subsidiary protection should not receive the social assistance enjoyed by other persons needing international protection. There should be no unequal treatment between persons in need of international protection. This is both legally dubious and administratively unhelpful. Once the need for protection has been established these persons all have the same social needs in the hosting Member State.

AddedArticle 35 – paragraph 2: 2. Beneficiaries of international protection who have special needs, such as pregnant women, disabled people, persons who have undergone torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence or minors who have been victims of any form of abuse, neglect, exploitation, torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or who have suffered from armed conflict shall be provided with adequate healthcare, including treatment of mental disorders when needed, under the same eligibility conditions as nationals of the Member State that has granted protection.

Change 66

ChangedArticle 36 – paragraph 5:1 5.– Ifsubparagraph an1: unaccompaniedWhere minorit is grantednot internationalpossible protectionto andkeep the tracing ofsame hisguardian orappointed herafter familythe membersarrival hasof notthe alreadyunaccompanied started,minor competentin authoritiesthe shallterritory startof tracingthe themUnion, as soon as possible after the granting of international protection, whilst protecting the minor’s best interests.protection Ifis tracinggranted hasand alreadyin started,any itcase shallno belater continuedthan wherefive appropriate.days Inthereafter, casescompetent whereauthorities thereshall maytake bethe anecessary threatmeasures to the lifeensure orthe integrityrepresentation of theunaccompanied minorminors orby hisa orlegal herguardian closeor, relatives,where particularlynecessary, ifby theyan haveorganisation remainedresponsible infor the country of origin, care must be taken to ensure that the collection, processing and circulationwell-being of information concerning thoseminors, personsor isby undertakenany onother aappropriate confidentialrepresentation basisincluding sothat asbased toon avoidlegislation jeopardisingor theircourt safety.order.

Change 67

RemovedAmendment tabled to clarify the purpose of taking information on a confidential basis.

AddedArticle 36 – paragraph 1 a (new): 1a. Member States shall ensure that a guardian is not placed in charge of a disproportionate number of unaccompanied minors at the same time that would render him or her unable to perform his or her tasks effectively, and in any case of no more than 20. Member States shall appoint entities or persons responsible for monitoring at regular intervals that guardians perform their tasks in a satisfactory manner. Those entities or persons shall also have the competence to review complaints lodged by unaccompanied minors against their guardian. To this end, unaccompanied minors shall be given information in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language both orally and in a visual form, in a child-friendly manner and in a language they understand, about who these entities or persons are and how to report file complaints against their guardians in confidence and safety.

RemovedArticle 38 – paragraph 1: 1. In order to facilitate the integration of beneficiaries of international protection into society, beneficiaries of international protection shall have access to integration measures provided by the Member States, in particular civic orientation and integration programs and vocational training, which shall be free of charge and easily accessible and shall take into account their specific needs.

AddedArticle 36 – paragraph 2: 2. The appointed guardian shall have the duty of ensuring that the minor can access all rights stemming from this Regulation. The responsible entities or persons shall assess the performance of the guardian within the first month after his/her appointment, and regularly thereafter.

RemovedThe Rapporteur welcomes the provisions on access to integration measures but believes that such measures must always be free of charge, easily accessible to beneficiaries of international protection (i.e. not limited to one or two big cities in a Member State) and take account of any particular needs of the beneficiary in question. This is even more imperative if a Member State wishes to make participation compulsory for beneficiaries of international protection. Provision on language courses in the following paragraph.

AddedArticle 36 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point c: (c) in open centres specialised in accommodation for minors, which take account of their vulnerability and ensure their safety;

Change 68

RemovedLanguage skills are indispensable in order to ensure that beneficiaries have an adequate standard of living, realistic job and better integration prospects. Learning the official language or one of official languages of the Member State concerned increases self-reliance and the chance of integration in the host society, and constitutes a deterrent against secondary movements. Effective access to language courses should therefore be granted to all beneficiaries from the date on which their application for international protection is granted.

Change 69

RemovedThe Rapporteur welcomes the provisions on access to integration measures but believes that such measures must always be free of charge, easily accessible to beneficiaries of international protection (i.e. not limited to one or two big cities in a Member State) and take account of any particular needs of the beneficiary in question. This is even more imperative if a Member State wishes to make participation compulsory for beneficiaries of international protection.

Change 70

RemovedArticle 44 – paragraph -1 (new): -1. In Article 4 of Directive 2003/109/EC, the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: / "Regarding persons to whom international protection has been granted, the period between the date of the lodging of the application for international protection on the basis of which that international protection was granted and the date of the granting of the residence permit referred to in Article 26 of Regulation (EU) ..../... [Qualifications Regulation], shall be taken into account in the calculation of the period referred to in paragraph 1".

AddedArticle 42: deleted / (deleted) / (deleted) / (deleted) / (deleted)

RemovedThe Commission proposes for the beneficiaries of international protection to benefit from long term residence, however the period would only start once their status is granted. The Rapporteur is of the opinion that the protection needs and circumstance of an applicant for an international protection, whom protection is granted at a later stage, are exactly the same as those of beneficiaries on international protection. The period of long term residence should therefore start from the day when an application is made. The Council Directive 2003/109/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

AddedArticle 42 a (new): Article 42a / Exercise of the delegation / 1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. / 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 24 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of two years from the [date of entry into force of the basic legislative act]. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the two-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. / 3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 24 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. / 4. Before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall consult experts designated by each Member State in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. / 5. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European …

AddedDirective 2003/109/EU

AddedArticle 44 – paragraph -1 (new), Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3: -1. In Article 4 of Directive 2003/109/EU, the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: / "Regarding persons to whom international protection has been granted, the period between the date of the lodging of the application for international protection on the basis of which that international protection was granted and the date of the granting of the residence permit referred to in Article 26 of Regulation (EU) ..../... [Qualifications Regulation], shall be taken into account in the calculation of the period referred to in paragraph 1."

Change 71 under “EXPLANATORY STATEMENT”

RemovedThe level of harmonisation reached today is reason for pride but the trend needs to be maintained. The Rapporteur wishes to bring forward the European humanistic tradition of asylum, which has travelled through centuries and progressively rooted throughout the whole EU territory. This means consolidating the acquis and further harmonising among Member States. This involves also anticipating and looking to the future. In this respect, the Rapporteur proposes an innovative amendment around environmental change. Natural or man-made evolutions of the planet are already creating situations of vulnerability and are likely to affect more and more human-beings. They may oblige persons to leave their place of residence and even their country to find shelter abroad. International protection provided under EU law should also cover these new needs of protection.

Change 72 under “EXPLANATORY STATEMENT”

AddedSHORT JUSTIFICATION

AddedThe proposed reform of the Common European Asylum System aims at shaping a more sustainable, fairer and holistic EU migration policy, based on the principles of fair sharing of responsibility and solidarity among Member States.

AddedNotwithstanding the legislative and political effort carried out in the past years at the European and Member States’ level, in order to respond effectively to the refugee crisis, several aspects related to the well-functioning of the asylum system still remain to be addressed. In particular, differences persist on rules and criteria for granting refugee status and subsidiary protection; on recognition rates among Member States as well as on the set of rights and obligations granted to beneficiaries. The Commission proposes to repeal the previous Recast Qualification Directive with a Regulation, therefore increasing the harmonisation potential of new common European instruments. The rapporteur believes it essential for reforms in this field to achieve the overarching goal of improving the current situation, which should be intended as a step forward in the effective rights provided to people who are in need of protection, and not just as the merely functional administrative re-organisation or rationalisation of rules, practices and procedures.

AddedWith a view to this, the possibility for social inclusion and labour market integration of beneficiaries of international protection into society is key.

AddedIn his draft opinion, therefore, the rapporteur puts forward amendments with the aim of ensuring that EU legislation allows exploiting the maximum potential of such integration prospects. In first instance, this means aligning the rights granted to refugees, on the one hand, and to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other, as it is already the case in some Member States, being such distinction often based on the disputable assumption of a more temporary nature of the protection needed. This creates in practice not only an unnecessary administrative complexity, but risks directly jeopardising their integration chances, for example due to a too short duration of their residence or work permits - being the two often intrinsically connected - or by linking the renewal of such residence permit to a protection status review, which also appears costly and unnecessary. For similar reasons, the rapporteur proposes a deletion from the text of the possibility for Member States to limit social assistance of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to core benefits.

AddedCommission allows for Member States to make participation in integration measures such as language courses, vocational training and other employment-related measures compulsory for beneficiaries of protection, in order facilitate their integration into society. While this can be accepted as a valuable tool for turning the short-term challenges of integration into an opportunity for society as a whole, at the same time it needs to be specified that such measures must be free of charge, available, easily accessible and always take into account the rights and values of the beneficiary of protection. It is also necessary to ensure that non or partial participation to such measures never puts at risk the protection status of the person, as this will directly constitute a violation of international refugee law.