Readmission of Third Country Nationals
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
| 1999 |  | 2004 |
Summit document.
FINAL
A5-0110/2000
25 April 2000
*
REPORT
regarding the initiative of the Republic of Finland aimed at issuing a Council regulation that establishes the obligations between member states for the readmission of third country nationals.
(12488/1999 – C5 – 0319/1999 – 1999/0823(CNS))
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
Rapporteur: Ms. Anna Karamanou.
| Glossary of symbols used. |
| * Consultation process. majority of the voters **I Collaboration process (first reading) majority of those voting **II Cooperation procedure (second reading) majority of the voters for the approval of the common position majority of the members of Parliament for the rejection or amendment of the common position *** Agreement majority of the members of Parliament, except in cases mentioned in Articles 105, 107, 161, and 300 of the EC Treaty and in Article 7 of the Treaty. ΕΕ ***I Co-decision procedure (first reading) majority of those voting***II Co-decision procedure (second reading) majority of the voters for the approval of the common position majority of the members of Parliament for the rejection or amendment of the common position***III Co-decision process (third reading) majority of the voters for the approval of the common proposal (The proposed procedure is based on the legal basis suggested by the Commission) |
CONTENTS.
Page
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE PROCEDURE……………………………………………………………………………………. 4
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL…………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION…………………………………………………………………… 5
EXPLANATORY REPORT……………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS
MARKET………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
Background of the procedure
In its letter dated December 8, 1999, the Council invited the Parliament to give an opinion, in accordance with Article 67 of the EC Treaty, regarding the initiative of the Republic of Finland aimed at issuing a Council regulation that establishes the obligations between member states for the readmission of third country nationals (12488/1999 – 1999/0823 (CNS)).
During the session of December 17, 1999, the President of the Parliament announced that she had referred the proposal for substantive examination to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and for opinion to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (C5-0319/1999).
During its meeting on February 24, 2000, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs appointed Ms. Anna Karamanou as rapporteur.
During its meetings on March 22, 2000, April 3, 2000, and April 18, 2000, the committee examined the proposal from the Republic of Finland as well as the draft report.
At the last mentioned meeting, the committee approved the draft legislative resolution with 18 votes in favor, 0 against, and 11 abstentions.
The following Members were present during the vote: Enrico Ferri, Vice-President; Anna Karamanou, Rapporteur; Christian von Boetticher, Alima Boumediene-Thiery, Michael Cashman, Charlotte Cederschiöld, Carlos Coelho, Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (substituting Robert J.E. Evans), Ozan Ceyhun, Gérard M.J. Deprez, Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli, Olivier Duhamel, Raina A. Mercedes Echerer (substituting Patsy Sörensen, in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2, of the Rules), Anne-Karin Glase (substituting Hartmut Nassauer, in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2, of the Rules), Daniel J. Hannan, Jorge Salvador Hernández Mollar, Margot Keßler, Timothy Kirkhope, Alain Krivine (substituting Pernille Frahm), Baroness Sarah Ludford, Minerva Melpomene Malliori (substituting Sérgio Sousa Pinto), Elena Ornella Paciotti, Ana Palacio Vallelersundi (substituting Ewa Klamt), Hubert Pirker, Martin Schulz, Joke Swiebel, Fodé Sylla, Anna Terrón i Cusí, and Anne E.M. Van Lancker (substituting Gianni Vattimo).
The opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market is attached to this report.
The report was submitted on April 25, 2000.
The deadline for submitting amendments will be indicated on the draft agenda for the session period during which the report will be considered.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
Initiative of the Republic of Finland aimed at issuing a Council regulation that establishes the obligations between member states for the readmission of third country nationals (12488/1999 – C5 – 0319/1999 – 1999/0823(CNS))
This proposal is rejected.
DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION.
Legislative resolution of the European Parliament regarding the initiative of the Republic of Finland aimed at issuing a Council regulation that establishes the obligations between member states for the readmission of third country nationals (12488/1999 – C5-0319/1999 – 99/0823(CNS)).
(Consultation procedure)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the initiative of the Republic of Finland aimed at issuing a Council regulation that establishes the obligations between member states for the readmission of third country nationals (12488/1999 – 99/0823(CNS)),
– having regard to Article 63(3)(b) of the EC Treaty,
– having been invited by the Council to give an opinion in accordance with Article 67 of the EC Treaty (C5 – 0319/1999),
– having regard to Article 67 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (A5-0110/2000),
1. rejects the initiative of the Republic of Finland;
2. calls on the Republic of Finland to withdraw its initiative;
3. assigns its President to transmit the Parliament’s position to the Council, the Commission, and the government of the Republic of Finland.
EXPLANATORY REPORT.
Ι. General framework.
The Secretary-General of the Council invited the European Parliament, in a letter dated December 8, 1999, to give its opinion, during the session period from May 15 to 19, 2000, regarding the draft regulation on the mutual obligations of member states for the readmission of third country nationals.
The Finnish initiative is based on Article 63(3)(b) of the EC Treaty, which stipulates that the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 67, shall establish measures on immigration policy in the area, among others, of illegal immigration and illegal residence, including the repatriation of illegally residing individuals, within five years of the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty. It should be noted that three member states, namely the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark, are not bound by the provisions of Title IV.
The Vienna Action Plan (December 1998) regarding the creation of a common area of freedom, security, and justice includes measures that should be approved within two years (with one year and one month remaining):
– assessment of countries of origin (this has been partially carried out through the work of the High-Level Group); legal status of legal migrants (no proposal has been made so far); EU policy on readmission and return (the current draft regulation originating from Finland; standardized readmission clause approved by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in December 1999; readmission clause in the EU/ACP partnership agreement; future readmission agreements being considered with Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Morocco, and Russia);
and measures that must be taken within five years (there are 4 years and 1 month remaining);
– determination and implementation of various measures that will be included in the European migration strategy:
– coordination of readmission clauses at the European level (the aforementioned standardized readmission clause, approved by the Council of Justice and Home Affairs in December 1999);
– preparation of detailed reports from diplomatic missions regarding the situation in countries of origin (there is no information on this subject);
– establishment of entry and residence conditions, including long-term visas and long-term residence permits (there are currently no proposals, but some activity may start under the French presidency);
– determination of the rights of legal migrants who are third-country nationals in order to live in other member states (there are currently no proposals).
Moreover, the Tampere conclusions (October 1999) emphasize the need for the European Union to adopt a comprehensive approach to the phenomenon of migration, taking into account political issues, human rights, and the development of countries and regions of origin and transit (conclusion 11). For the management of migration flows, the European Council called for greater effectiveness at all stages (awareness campaigns, visa policy and counterfeit documents, combating human trafficking and networks of illegal immigration) (conclusion 23). At the same time, the rights of victims of criminal organizations should be safeguarded.
Regarding border control, there should be closer cooperation and mutual assistance among member states (conclusion 24). In the context of assistance to countries of origin and transit, emphasis is placed on promoting voluntary repatriation, combating human trafficking, and respecting readmission obligations towards the Union and member states (conclusion 26). The European Council called on the Council to conclude readmission agreements or to include standardized readmission clauses in other agreements, as well as to actively address the issue of internal readmission (conclusion 27). This very issue is the subject of the proposed regulation under consideration.
The scoreboard prepared by the Commission for submission to the Council of Justice and Home Affairs on March 27, 2000, includes the evaluation of countries and regions of origin and transit (section 2.1) in light of the continuation of the work of the high-level group (deadline: April 2001), measures to strengthen the fight against trafficking and exploitation of people (basic rules for the components of criminal offenses and penalties; dismantling networks with the help of Europol; harmonization of national legislation regarding carrier liability, section 2.4), and assistance to third countries to meet their obligations in the area of readmission. The scoreboard refers to the measure of concluding readmission agreements or incorporating standardized clauses based on recommendations made by the Commission on February 14, 2000, regarding the establishment of its negotiation mandate with four third countries (see section IV a) of the accompanying explanatory memorandum).
The scoreboard does not address the issue of internal readmission.
ΙΙ. Readmission
Regarding the issue of readmission, member states already have experience from agreements made under the European Political Cooperation (EPC)[1], the Schengen cooperation (where the visa requirement was abolished and, instead, there was a commitment from the third country to readmit its nationals, as in the case of Poland, for example)[2] as well as relevant national experience. Subsequently, under the Maastricht framework, they also approved a series of informal acts from the former third pillar concerning illegal immigration, illegal work, deportation, voluntary repatriation, readmission, and early warning systems for illegal immigration.
The term “readmission” carries a significant ambiguity: it can be used both for deportation and for voluntary repatriation, but it primarily emphasizes the stance of third countries that are called upon to take back (to accept again) their nationals. Thus, the Union appears to relieve itself of part of the burden of responsibilities it bears as a whole of “wealthy” host countries.
We must not forget that only a small part of global migration flows concerns the EU member states. There is a prevailing view, increasingly accepted by political forces, that the positive contribution of migration should be objectively assessed, in the medium and long term, in conjunction with, among other factors, the demographic situation in Europe, its labor market, and its social organization. In sectors such as industry, agriculture, construction, domestic work, healthcare, and trade, both legal and illegal migrants primarily fill jobs that have been abandoned or rejected by Europeans, thus making a significant contribution to Europe’s economic development.
Moreover, a whole range of factors related to respect for human rights, cooperation and development policies, elements connected to the economic and social situation in host countries, public order issues, visa policies as a means of managing migration flows, and combating certain serious forms of crime, such as human trafficking and smuggling networks, play a role in the issue of readmission.
This is a delicate issue that requires an inter-pillar approach (migration falls under the first pillar, while judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters, which are also essential for implementing a coherent policy, fall under the third pillar).
Furthermore, according to some opinions, readmission agreements, while related to migration, are not solely a matter of Community competence.
ΙΙΙ. The content of the Finnish initiative
The draft regulation proposed by the outgoing Finnish presidency does not include an explanatory memorandum.
The initiative lacks a truly strategic vision and does not fully adhere to the coordinated, comprehensive, and multi-sectoral timeline proposed in the Vienna Action Plan, the Tampere conclusions, or the scoreboard.
What we can observe is that the draft regulation seeks to establish a “Dublin” system for illegal migrants, analogous to the system created by the 1990 Convention for asylum seekers. In this context, recitals 3 characterize the draft regulation as a development of the Schengen acquis[3] ;in this way, the participation of the United Kingdom and Ireland is doubly excluded.
The perspective emerging from the text is narrow: the priority is to send third-country nationals who are illegally present on the territory of a member state back to their countries of origin or to another third country (see recital 5) based on a system of mandatory readmission among member states, before the departure of the individual concerned (see Article 1, points 1 – 2). In the case of readmission agreements established by the Community, the regulation aims to determine which member state is obliged to readmit third-country nationals in order to implement the agreement (see recital 6 and Article 1, paragraph 3).
The draft regulation does not obstruct a member state’s ability to send back to the country of origin or to a third country a foreign national (a third-country national) who no longer meets the applicable entry or residence conditions in the territory of that member state (Article 1, paragraph 5). This provision seems to legitimize stricter decisions that could be made by member states outside the framework of this regulation.
Other controversial points can also be mentioned:
– the rejection of any solidarity among member states, particularly regarding illegal border crossings and the responsibility for external borders (Articles 8 and 9): while this type of philosophy might have been justified in the context of intergovernmental cooperation under Schengen, it is no longer suitable for the Community, where a degree of flexibility should be recommended to adapt Community measures to the situations of different regions.
– the fact that there is no distinction made between a third-country national who does not meet the entry or residence conditions at all and a third-country national who no longer meets those conditions in a member state: the personal circumstances of individuals who may have spent a relatively long time in a member state before becoming “illegal” are not taken into account.
– the exclusion of residence permits for asylum seekers from the permits covered by the regulation raises the question of whether this is another way to undermine their protection (the fact that no legislation is proposed for these individuals leaves the possibility of indiscriminate deportations open); or is it a way to finally clarify the distinction between the separate fields of migration and asylum? And what about temporary permits granted for subsidiary protection?
– the acceptance of proof of entry into the territory of a member state based on presumptive evidence, among other things!
– the acceptance of a readmission request to another member state within six months from the moment the competent authorities of the requesting member state ascertain that a third-country national may be (and not “is”) illegally in the country!
– the determination of the data required to identify individuals intended for readmission: this opens the door to potential abuse (see Article 15, point c).
Essentially, the main problem is the lack of a European strategy for legal migration, especially aimed at labor migration. Instead of initiating the preparation of a legislative measure (directive) that would lay down the foundations and principles (quotas, age, qualifications, waiting periods, family reunification, and anything else deemed appropriate) for the pathway of legal migration, the Council (and seemingly the Commission) are engaging in work, or rather continuing to think and operate in the manner of intergovernmental cooperation, focusing on repression and policing issues.
While legal migration has not been defined at the Community level, resulting in it being subject to 15 different laws and practices, we are limited to regulating what needs to be done regarding illegal migrants. Moreover, we should not restrict ourselves to actions related to administrative and police cooperation; we must also address the unification of criminal legislation, which should be provided for certain serious crimes based on Title VI of the TEU, supported by the European Council in Tampere (see conclusion 23 on human trafficking and the economic exploitation of migrants, which is adopted in the scoreboard, section 2.4). Otherwise, as we must point out, just as with the draft directive on family reunification, we are dealing with a specific area of migration policy without any Community reference framework, complicating the situation further.
Another serious problem is the lack of reliable, comprehensive, and comparable data regarding legal migration (including family reunification), illegal migration, smuggling to the borders, repatriation, etc.
From recent informal discussions with the Portuguese presidency and the Council’s secretariat, it appears that the draft regulation proposed by Finland is no longer a priority for the Council.
Consensus is no longer being sought within the framework of the Portuguese presidency.
ΙV. Other ongoing work
a) The European Commission submitted to the Council, after approval on February 14, 2000, proposals for recommendations (Article 300 TEC) to establish the mandate for negotiating readmission agreements with certain significant countries of origin (specifically Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Morocco), which have already been examined by the High-Level Group on asylum and migration, and, on the other hand, with Russia (within the framework of the common European strategy for that country).
In these agreements it is expected that provisions will be included to regulate the mutual obligations between the member states· in this case, the Finnish initiative will be overridden.
However, it is likely that the provisions regarding mutual obligations may not be entirely identical across the various agreements: this would create discrepancies and potentially discriminate against third-country nationals, highlighting once again the inconsistency of the European approach to migration.
However, the European Parliament is interested in participating in the near future in determining the negotiating mandate of the European Commission for preparing readmission agreements with the selected countries and is requesting the Council to commit to seeking the Parliament’s opinion.
b) On February 4, 2000, a partnership agreement with a twenty-year duration was concluded to develop relations between the European Union and the ACP countries.
The agreement will replace the Lomé Convention.
The agreement includes a readmission clause for illegal migrants. The text results from a difficult compromise between the standard readmission clause of the European Union (agreed by the Council on December 2 and 3, 1999) and the arrangement for the readmission of illegal migrants from third countries and stateless illegal migrants. There may be negotiations for bilateral agreements between the European Union and individual ACP countries to address any specific issues within this area.
The European Parliament is expected to intervene at a later stage within the framework of the “consultation procedure.” The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs may simply be called to provide an opinion in this context. The committee responsible for substantive examination will almost certainly be the Committee on Development and Cooperation.
Contradictory clauses or clauses that introduce discrimination based on the country in question should be avoided as much as possible. National interests should not take precedence over the community approach. Any automation between development cooperation and the acceptance of the readmission clause should also be avoided.
Agreements on readmission should also be avoided at all costs with countries experiencing political instability or, worse, those without a legitimate and representative government and where serious human rights violations occur. In all cases, the Geneva Convention and the principle of non-refoulement for asylum seekers must be strictly upheld.
V. Conclusions
The rapporteur suggests that the committee reject the draft regulation, monitor the establishment of the Commission’s mandate for future readmission agreement negotiations, and maintain close contact with the Portuguese presidency to explore whether there is room for the European Parliament to influence the content of the recommendations for future readmission agreements.
17 April 2000
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS AND THE INTERNAL MARKET
Initiative of the Republic of Finland for the issuance of a Council regulation that establishes the obligations between Member States for the readmission of third country nationals.
12488/1999 – 12488/1999/CORI‑C5-0319/1999 – 1999/0823 – 1999/0823((CNS))
Rapporteur for the opinion: Ms. Mercedes Echerer.
Mercedes Echerer
At its meetings on March 28, 2000, and April 17, 2000, the committee examined the draft opinion.
At the last mentioned meeting, the committee approved the following conclusions with 15 votes in favor, 2 votes against, and 1 abstention.
The following members were present during the vote: Ana Palacio Vallelersundi, Chair; Ward Beysen, Vice-Chair; Raina A. Mercedes Echerer, Rapporteur; Charlotte Cederschiöld, Willy C.E.H. De Clercq, Francesco Fiori (substituting for Antonio Tajani in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Rules), Marie-Françoise Garaud, Malcolm Harbour, Heidi Anneli Hautala, Lord Inglewood, Kurt Lechner, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Donald Neil MacCormick, Véronique Mathieu, Manuel Medina Ortega, Bill Miller, Francesco Enrico Speroni, and Diana Paulette Wallis.
Brief Justification
The aim of the Finnish initiative is to establish the provisions governing the readmissionof third-country nationals who do not meet or no longer meet the applicable entry or residence conditions in the territory of a member state (Article 1, paragraph 2): an internal “channeling” system, discreetly called the “readmission mechanism,” will in some way connect the countries of Europe underground.
At this point, some legal comments should be made.
First of all, the term “readmission” is not defined anywhere in the initiative, and therefore its meaning must be partially understood from the context and partially outlined through the imagination of the readers.
The Finnish initiative must primarily be examined in the following context: in a European Union that has justifiably increasingly abolished and downgraded borders between member states, and particularly between the member states of the Schengen Agreement, not only individuals who are entitled to do so can move relatively freely, but also individuals who, from an administrative perspective, are not entitled to do so (that is, mainly individuals who, due to their difficult economic situation, have decided to enter the EU).
Ορισμένα κράτη (ή ακριβέστερα: ορισμένες governments) apparently tend to deport certain third-country nationals from their territory to other member states, thereby shifting the responsibility for these third-country nationals to those other member states.
The process on which these actions are based is questionable.
Specifically, the Finnish initiative aims to implement this unreasonable process by first establishing a priority order for the readmission criteria and then outlining certain measures for implementation.
a) The order of priority of the criteria.
The member state that is obligated to readmit a third-country national is determined as follows: initially, the member state that issued a valid residence permit is responsible for readmitting that person, followed by the member state that issued a valid visa, then the member state that issued an expired residence permit or visa, and finally the member state where the person has… illegally resided for at least six months.…then the member state through which the third country national… …has unlawfully entered. …and finally, the member state that has initiated the return procedure for the third country national to a country where the individual is entitled to enter lawfully (Articles 4 to 10).
It is easy to see that the main issue will focus on individuals who have entered a member state illegally and those who have resided illegally in a member state for at least six months.
In the area governed by the Schengen Agreement, the uniform valid visas [4] and residence permits [5], issued by a member state of the Schengen Agreement do not play any role as a point of reference, since according to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (Articles 9 – 24) each member state of the Schengen Agreement recognizes the visas and residence permits issued by another member state of the Schengen Agreement.
In the case of a visa or residence permit that has expired it is provided, however, according to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, for the movement of the third-country national to a third country or their readmission by another member state of the Schengen Agreement. In this case, however, it is not easy to determine which member state of the Schengen Agreement would potentially assume the obligation to readmit the said national.
However, this does not apply in the case of individuals who illegally enter a member state and third-country nationals who have illegally resided for at least six months in a member state. At this point, it would be particularly difficult to gather evidence. This could only be proven by using any available fingerprint data from the Eurodac database– but the author of this opinion is, on the one hand, particularly cautious regarding the Eurodac system[6] and, on the other hand, especially in the case of individuals who illegally enter a country, there are usually no records of their fingerprints.
Further complex problems may arise regarding the Dublin Regulation. This regulation provides certain rules regarding the “taking charge,” “take back,” and “transfer” of asylum seekers, which are similar to the measures proposed in the Finnish initiative, although they are not identical.[7]. Given that, according to the current legal situation at the national level, it is still possible for asylum seekers to reside legally or illegally in the member state in question.[8], illegal asylum seekers would therefore be simultaneously subject to the provisions of the Dublin Regulation and the Finnish initiative, although the rules and legal consequences they establish are not identical!
In the coordinated implementation of the Dublin Regulation and the Finnish initiative, there are certain areas that are not adequately regulated. However, a more in-depth approach has not been attempted regarding the strategy followed by the initiative on asylum issues.
b) The procedures for establishing the order of priority and implementing the readmission system.
βα) To determine illegal entry and illegal residence in a member state, entry and exit stamps, tickets, and boarding/deboarding cards, as well as indicators – which have questionable validity according to legal rules – may be used (Article 11). The concept of “indicators,” since it is not more clearly defined, could lead to arbitrary actions. However, all these auxiliary means may not resolve the problem, as demonstrated by the similar case of the application of the Dublin Convention.
It is also noteworthy that there is a deliberately vague reference to “other necessary elements… according to this regulation, such as ….. fingerprints and photographs“(Article 15, paragraph 1c).
ββ) The proposed solution to the issue of costs is also noteworthy due to its relative vagueness. Generally, the costs of transfer are borne by the member state requesting readmission (Article 14, paragraph 1). Each member state is responsible for the costs of the assistance provided by its authorities (Article 14, paragraph 2).
Furthermore, “implementing measures” are established for the cost regulations within the framework of the management committee procedure with a qualified majority (Article 16e), Article 4 of Decision 1999/468/EC regarding “comitology.”
Evaluation of the initiative.
We must conclude that the initiative is characterized by carelessness. It lacks any form of justification, relevant preparations for the topic have not been made within the framework of public discussions, and the opinions of NGOs, such as the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Amnesty International, or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), have not been sought.
On one hand, there are serious reservations regarding the principle of the movement of individuals between member states, and on the other hand, the proposed provisions highlight implementation issues that are already foreseeable, particularly at the most critical points.
From one perspective, the initiative follows a reverse approach to the expected strategy: it acts as an indirect pressure mechanism on certain member states to secure their external borders. However, it would be correct to first first adequately check the external borders and then consider the possibility of transferring individuals between member states. The Finnish initiative makes no mention of combating the root causes of the refugee problem and illegal immigration. If these possibilities are not sufficiently utilized, this initiative should be viewed with more caution.
The initiative completely lacks procedural guarantees for individuals affected by the readmission status. However, a regulation concerning potential serious violations of fundamental rights, especially regarding free movement and freedom itself, cannot fail to reference legal remedies or the protection of the fundamental rights of the affected individuals. The European Parliament has already expressed such demands for procedural safeguards and the protection of fundamental rights in its resolution of March 11, 1997, on the future of the Schengen Agreement [9], and in its resolution of April 13, 1999, on the area of freedom, security, and justice. [10] and in the resolution of March 16, 2000, regarding the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The relationship between the fundamental principles of readmission among member states and the corresponding readmission principles in third countries remains unclear. It would be difficult to justify setting different criteria in this regard. However, this possibility becomes evident as the Commission (and not the Finnish presidency) is negotiating readmission agreements with Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Russia, and Morocco. In this context, the Commission is relying on higher criteria.
Also, based on the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, as well as the Protocol on the position of Denmark, it is rather unlikely that the initiative will apply throughout the territory of the EU. The committee expressed arguments for and against this initiative. The majority of members ultimately adopted the view that the Republic of Finland should be asked to withdraw its proposal. In this way, the initiators of the initiative would have the opportunity to reconsider it both in terms of content and from a technical perspective.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market calls on the competent Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to incorporate the following initiatives into its report:
| Finnish initiative. [11] | Amendments of the Parliament. |
(Amendment 1)
[The European Parliament,]
2. calls on the Republic of Finland to withdraw its initiative;
Justification:
The committee expressed arguments for and against this initiative. The majority of members ultimately adopted the view that the Republic of Finland should be asked to withdraw its proposal. In this way, the initiators of the initiative would have the opportunity to reconsider it both in terms of content and from a technical perspective..
[1] Recommendation of November 30, 1992, regarding the practices of member states in the field of removal, recommendation of November 30, 1992, regarding passage for the purpose of removal.
[2] Council Recommendation of November 30, 1994, regarding bilateral readmission agreements between a member state and a third country; Council Recommendation of July 24, 1995, regarding the guidelines to be followed when drafting protocols for the implementation of readmission agreements; Council Recommendation of November 30, 1994, regarding the approval of model travel documents for the removal of third country nationals; Recommendation of December 22, 1995, regarding coordination and cooperation in the execution of removal measures.
[3] Articles 4, 5, and 6 state that in order to determine which member state is responsible for the readmission of a third country national, valid residence permits, valid visas, and the resolution of cases where there are multiple residence titles or more than one valid visa issued by different member states held by individuals should be considered.
[4] See Regulation (EC) No. 1683/95.
[5] See Joint Action on uniform residence permits (EU L 7 of January 10, 1997, p. 1).
[6] See document COM(1999)0260 final.
[7] Articles 10 and 11 of the Dublin Convention; Article 7 of Decision 1/97 on the implementation of the Dublin Convention.
[8] See Paragraph 19, subsections 1 and 2 of the Austrian Asylum Act.
[9] EU C 115 of April 14, 1997, p. 17 and 30.
[10] EU C 219 of June 30, 1999, p. 23 and 73.
[11] ΕΕ C 353