Considerations on COM(2020)613 - Addressal of situations of crisis and force majeure in the field of migration and asylum - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2020)613 - Addressal of situations of crisis and force majeure in the field of migration and asylum. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2020)613  |
| date | May 14, 2024 |
(2) To this end, a comprehensive approach is required with the objective of building mutual trust between Member States.
(3) The comprehensive approach should bring together policies in the areas of asylum, migration management, returns, external border protection and partnership with relevant third countries, recognising that the effectiveness of the overall approach depends on all components being jointly addressed and in an integrated manner. The comprehensive approach should ensure that the Union has at its disposal specific rules to effectively manage migration including the triggering of a compulsory solidarity mechanism and that all the necessary measures are put in place to prevent crisis to happen.
(4) Notwithstanding the putting in place of the necessary preventive measures, it cannot be excluded that a situation of crisis or force majeure in the field of migration and asylum arises due to circumstances beyond the control of the Union and its Member States.
(5) This Regulation should contribute to and complete the comprehensive approach by setting out the specific procedures and mechanisms in the field of international
OJ C , , p. OJ C , , p.
protection and return that should apply in the exceptional circumstances of a situation of crisis. It should ensure, in particular, the effective application of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility and the adaptation of the relevant rules on asylum and return procedures, so that the Member States and the Union have the necessary tools at their disposal including sufficient time to carry out those procedures.
(6) A mass influx of persons crossing the border irregularly and within a short period of time may lead to a situation of crisis in a particular Member State. That may also have consequences for the functioning of the asylum and migration system, not only in that Member State but in the Union as a whole, due to unauthorised movements and the lack of capacity in the Member State of first entry to process the applications for international protection of such third-country nationals. It is necessary to lay down specific rules and mechanisms that should enable effective action to address such situations.
(7) In addition to situations of crisis, Member States may be faced with abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances outside their control, the consequences of which could not have been avoided in spite of the exercise of all due care. Such situations of force majeure could make it impossible to respect the time limits set by Regulations (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation] and (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] for registering applications for international protection or carrying out the procedures for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection. In order to ensure that the common asylum system continues functioning in an efficient and fair manner, while guaranteeing a timely examination of international protection needs and legal certainty, longer time limits for the registration of applications and for the procedural steps required for determining responsibility and transferring applicants to the responsible Member State should apply in such situations. Member States faced with a situation of force majeure should also be able to implement the solidarity measures that they have to take pursuant to the solidarity mechanism set out in this Regulation and in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] within an extended time frame, where necessary.
(8) The solidarity mechanism for situations of migratory pressure as set out in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] should be adapted to the specific needs of situations of crisis by extending the personal scope of the solidarity measures provided for in that Regulation and setting shorter deadlines.
(9) The adoption of measures in respect of a particular Member State should be without prejudice to the possibility for the Council to adopt provisional measures on a proposal from the Commission pursuant to Article 78(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the event of an emergency situation in a Member State characterised by a sudden inflow of third-country nationals.
(10) In order to quickly help alleviate the pressure faced by a Member State in a situation of crisis, the scope of relocation should include all categories of applicants for international protection, including persons granted immediate protection, as well as beneficiaries of international protection and irregular migrants. Furthermore, a Member State that provides return sponsorship should transfer the illegally staying third-country national from the benefitting Member State if the person concerned does not return or is not removed within four months, instead of eight months as provided for by Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management].
(11) The procedural rules set out in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] for carrying out relocation and return sponsorship should be applied for the purpose of ensuring the proper implementation of the solidarity measures in a situation of crisis, although they should be adjusted in order to take into account the gravity and urgency of that situation.
(12) In situations of crisis, Member States might need a wider set of measures in order to manage a mass influx of third-country nationals in an orderly fashion and contain unauthorised movements. Such measures should include the application of an asylum crisis management procedure and a return crisis management procedure.
(13) In order to allow Member States to deal with large numbers of applications for international protection in situations of crisis, a longer time limit should be set for registering the applications for international protection made during such situations of crisis. Such an extension should be without prejudice to the rights of asylum applicants guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
(14) In order to ensure that Member States have the necessary flexibility when confronted with a large influx of migrants expressing the intention to apply for asylum, the application of the border procedure, established by Article 41 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation] should be broadened, and an asylum crisis management procedure should allow Member States to take a decision in the framework of a border procedure also on the merits of an application in cases where the applicant is of a nationality, or, in the case of stateless persons, a former habitual resident of a third country, for which the proportion of decisions granting international protection Union-wide is 75% or lower. As a result, in the application of the crisis border procedure, Member States should continue applying the border procedure as provided by Article 41 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation] but could extend the application of the border procedure to nationals who come from third countries where the EU-wide average recognition rate is above 20% but under 75%.
(15) The screening of third-country nationals according to the rules laid down in Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation] should apply with the possibility to extend the 5-day deadline by another five days, as specified in that Regulation.
(16) In a situation of crisis, in view of the possible strain on the asylum system, Member States should have the possibility not to authorise the entry in their territory of applicants subject to a border procedure for a longer period of time than the ones set in Article 41 (11) and (13) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation]. However, the procedures should be completed as soon as possible and in any event the periods of time should only be prolonged by an additional period not exceeding eight weeks; if those procedures cannot be completed by the expiry of that prolonged period, applicants should be authorised to enter the territory of a Member State for the purpose of completing the procedure for international protection.
(17) The return crisis management procedure should facilitate, in a situation of crisis, the return of illegally staying third-country nationals whose applications were rejected in the context of a crisis asylum management procedure and who have no right to remain and are not allowed to remain, by providing the competent national authorities with the necessary tools and sufficient time-frame to carry out return procedures with due diligence. To be able to respond to situations of crisis in an effective manner, the return crisis management procedure should apply also to applicants, third-country
nationals and stateless persons subject to the border procedure referred to in Article 41 of the of proposed Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation], whose applications were rejected before the adoption of a Commission decision declaring that a Member State is confronted with a situation of crisis, and who have no right to remain and are not allowed to remain after such a decision.
(18) When applying the return crisis management procedure, illegally staying third-country nationals or stateless persons who have no right to remain and are not allowed to remain should not be authorised to enter the territory of the Member State concerned and should be kept at the locations referred to in Article 41a(2) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation] for a period that may be longer than the one established by that Article in order to enable authorities to cope with the situations of crisis and finalise return procedures; for this purpose, the maximum duration of 12 weeks of the border procedure for carrying out return set out in Article 41a(2) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation] could be prolonged by an additional period that may not exceed eight weeks. During that period, it should be possible to keep the illegally staying third-country nationals in detention, in application of Article 41(a)(5) and (6) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation], provided that the guarantees and conditions for detention laid down in Directive XXX/XXX/EU [recast Return Directive] are respected, including the individual assessment of each case, judicial control of detention and adequate conditions of detention.
(19) In order to allow for the proper management of a crisis situation and ensure a proper adaptation of the relevant rules on the asylum and return procedure, the Commission should, by way of an implementing decision, authorise concerned Member States, upon their reasoned request, to apply relevant derogatory rules. Such an implementing decision could authorise one or more requesting Member States to derogate from the relevant rules.
(20) The Commission should examine a reasoned request submitted by a Member State while taking into account substantiated information gathered pursuant to Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Agency Regulation] and Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council3 and the Migration Management report referred to in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management].
(21) In order to provide Member States with additional time needed to deal with the situation of crisis and at the same time ensure an effective and as quick as possible access to the relevant procedures and rights, the Commission should authorise the application of the asylum crisis management procedure and the return crisis management procedure for a period of six months, which could be extended up to a period not exceeding one year. After the expiry of the relevant period, the extended deadlines provided for in the asylum and return crisis management procedures should not be applied to new applications for international protection.
(22) For the same reasons, the Commission should authorise the application of derogatory rules as regards the registration deadline for a period not exceeding four weeks, which should be renewable upon a new reasoned request submitted by the Member State
Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624, OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1.
3
concerned. The total period of application should nonetheless not exceed twelve weeks.
(23) In a crisis situation, Member States should have the possibility to suspend the examination of applications for international protection made by displaced persons from third countries who are unable to return to their country of origin, where they would face a high degree of risk of being subject to indiscriminate violence, in exceptional situations of armed conflict. In such a case, immediate protection status should be granted to those persons. Member States should resume the examination of their application one year at the latest from its suspension.
(24) Persons granted immediate protection should continue to be considered as applicants for international protection, in view of their pending application for international protection within the meaning of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation], as well as within the meaning of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management].
(25) Member States should ensure that beneficiaries of immediate protection status have effective access to all the rights laid down in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Qualification Regulation] applicable and equivalent to those enjoyed by beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.
(26) In order to carry out a proper assessment of applications for international protection submitted by beneficiaries of immediate protection, the asylum procedures should resume at the latest after one year from the suspension of such procedures.
(27) Since the adoption of Council Directive 2001/55/EC4, the rules concerning the qualification of beneficiaries of international protection have evolved considerably. Given that this Regulation lays down rules for granting immediate protection status in crisis situations to displaced persons from third countries who are unable to return to their country of origin, and provides for specific rules for solidarity for such persons, Directive 2001/55/EC should be repealed.
(28) Specific rules should be set out for situations of force majeure, to allow Member States to extend the time limits set out in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] under strict conditions where it is impossible to comply with those time limits due to the extraordinary situation. Such extension should apply to the time limits set out for sending and replying to take charge requests and take back notifications as well as the time limit to transfer an applicant to the Member State responsible.
(29) Specific rules should also be set out for situations of force majeure, to allow Member States to extend the time limits relating to registration of applications for international protection in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation], under strict conditions. In these cases, applications for international protection should be registered by that Member State at the latest four weeks from when they are made.
(30) In such situations of force majeure, the Member State concerned should notify the Commission and, where applicable, the other Member States, of its intention to apply the respective derogations from those time limits, as well as the precise reasons for
Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12.)
4
their intended application, as well as the period of time during which they will be applied.
(31) In situations of force majeure, which render it impossible for a Member State to comply with the obligation to undertake solidarity measures within the timeframes established in the Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] and this Regulation, it should be possible for that Member State to notify the Commission and the other Member States of the precise reasons for which it considers that it is facing such a situation and extend the timeframe for undertaking solidarity measures.
(32) Where a Member State is no longer facing a situation of force majeure, it should, as soon as possible, notify the Commission, and where applicable, the other Member States, of the cessation of the situation. The time limits derogating from Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] should not be applied to new applications for international protection made or for third-country nationals or stateless persons found to be illegally staying after the date of that notification. Upon such notification, the time limits laid down in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation] should start to apply.
(33) To support Member States who undertake relocation as a solidarity measure, financial support from the EU budget should be provided.
(34) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European
Parliament and of the Council5.
(35) The examination procedure should be used for the adoption of solidarity measures in
situations of crisis for authorising the application of derogatory procedural rules, and for triggering the granting of immediate protection status.
(36) The Commission
should adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in duly
justified imperative grounds of urgency due to the situation of crisis present in Member States.
(37) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular respect for human dignity, the right to life, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to asylum and the protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition. The Regulation should be implemented in compliance with the Charter and general principles of Union law as well as international law, including refugee protection, human rights obligation and the prohibition of refoulement.
(38) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that Article 8 of this Regulation constitute amendments within the meaning of Article 3 of the Agreement concluded between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).
5
State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in Denmark or any other Member State of the European Union and ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention6, Denmark has to notify the Commission of its decision whether or not to implement the content of such amendments at the time of the adoption of the amendments or within 30 days hereafter.
(39) [In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Ireland has notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation]
OR
(40) [In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.]
(41) As regards Iceland and Norway, Article 8 of this Regulation constitute new legislation in a field which is covered by the subject matter of the Annex to the Agreement concluded by the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway7.
(42) As regards Switzerland, Article 8 of this Regulation constitute acts or measures amending or building upon the provisions of Article 1 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland8.
(43) As regards Liechtenstein, Article 8 of this Regulation constitute acts or measures amending or building upon the provisions of Article 1 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland to which Article 3 of the Protocol between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland9 refers,
OJ L 66, 8.3.2006, p. 38.
OJ L 93 , 3.4.2001 p. 40.
OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 5.
OJ L 160, 18.6.2011, p. 37.