Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

The proposed revision of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is striving to respond to the migration trends of the last few years and the arrival of large numbers of third-country nationals in the European Union, many of whom are in need of international protection. Proposing to again revise the CEAS so soon after the adoption of the last reform may not be the best way to ensure that the system operates fully and takes root in national policies and practices. However, the opportunity to reform the CEAS should be seized in order to improve the common asylum policy of the Union, which should be based on true solidarity and a fair sharing of responsibility, moving gradually to a uniform international protection status valid throughout the Union as enshrined in the Article 78(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The Rapporteur therefore sees the proposal to turn the Qualification Directive into a Regulation as an opportunity to move further towards a progressive, positive and upward harmonisation of standards for determining that persons are in need of international protection and defining the rights which those persons should enjoy. While the system is under strain, it is essential to reaffirm the European asylum tradition based on the Geneva Convention and strengthen additional protections that the Union has progressively developed on the basis of its common values.

Bearing this in mind, the Rapporteur had a particular eye in ensuring that case law developed by the two European courts, in Luxembourg and Strasbourg, was properly integrated in the revised piece of legislation, such as fundamental rights and anti-discrimination acquis. The Rapporteur took account of the policies and practices developed so far by the Member States on the basis of the Qualification Directive, and sought to improve it.

The logic of approximating the two protection status and further harmonisation guided the Rapporteur’s policy choice in this report. The current practice in the Member States and the very concept of protection does not effective provide grounds for the distinction between the two statuses. In particular the reality shows that the subsidiary protection is based on an unjustified assumption of more temporary nature of protection and limited in its effectiveness.

Furthermore, the Rapporteur tried to combine protection with integration rather than punitive measures, favouring thus long-term social cohesion and security for all, and discouraging secondary movement. A general concern for the future practical operation of the Regulation avoiding to overburden Member States’ administrations guided the amendments proposed.

Along this line, the Rapporteur wishes to amend the proposed compulsory review of the granted status of beneficiaries of international protection, both in case of changes of circumstances in the country of origin and at the moment of renewal. Although the Rapporteur agrees that evolutions in the country of origin, assessed in a harmonised way by the EU Agency for Asylum, may affect the protection needs, a systematic review would prove highly resource-intensive for the determining authorities in the Member States. Moreover, being constantly and potentially subject to such a review may undermine integration prospects of the beneficiary in his or her host society. The Rapporteur therefore proposes to leave the review as an option to Member States rather than imposing it as an automatic and compulsory part of the asylum status.

In the same way, the Rapporteur does not wish to see the revised EU legislation lead to a reduction of the length of residence permits currently granted by Member States to beneficiaries of international protection residing on their territory. She therefore proposes to amend the new EU standard period of validity of the residence permits for both refugees and beneficiaries of the subsidiary protection to better reflect the current practice at national level and provide beneficiaries with more legal security. This, again, aims to encourage the beneficiaries to invest in their lives and thus contribute to their hosting communities.

Moreover, amendments on this point tend to align the length of the residence permit for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Indeed, the latter status does not respond to a need for protection that would be more temporary, but simply different in that it does not fall under the refugee legal definition and status. Although not ‘refugees’ stricto sensu, those persons also face great risks in their country of origin, cannot return safely and have to rebuild their lives in a country that provides them with ‘refuge’. It is therefore as essential for them as it is for refugee to try and build a legal framework encouraging their integration. Beyond the period of validity of the residence permit, this logic of approximating the two protection status guided a number of amendments tabled by the rapporteur.