Asylum and migration management

Coming rapidly at the heart of our comment, we believe that the European Community is in a position to adopt measures that are less timid than those proposed, even going beyond ‘Dublin’. The problem of immigration and European management should follow some of those we believe would be “Pilastri” for a Community of States: Guidelines considered to be essential 1.

Filed in Italian · English published by the European Commission

The proposed Regulation on asylum and migration management serves to replace the Dublin III Regulation and represents the long-waited reform of the Dublin System. However, the civil society was expecting more radical changes in order to reinforce responsibility sharing among Member States (MS).

Missing Children Europe welcome the important fundamental rights reinforcements in the proposal, most notably, the enlargement of the scope of the Regulation to include siblings as well as families formed in transit countries. We also welcome the strengthened emphasis rights for unaccompanied minors, in particular the best interest of the child as set out in article 13 of the proposal.

With its proposal for a Regulation on the management of asylum and migration (COM (2020) 610), the Commission introduces into EU law a series of mechanisms and rules designed to establish a common framework for the management of asylum and migration and to establish solidarity mechanisms.

Filed in Italian · English published by the European Commission

In terms of criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible, the Red Cross EU Office observers that despite the shortcomings of the Dublin system, the Pact does not propose removing the obligation for asylum seekers to remain in the country where their application was first registered.

The proposal for a Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management (RAMM) is hardly the fresh start on the question of responsibility that was promised by the European Commission before the presentation of the New Pact.

The Return Sponsorship scheme The proposed “return sponsorship” scheme raises more questions than answers. Firstly, the unclear division of responsibilities between the “sponsoring” state and the “benefitting” state risks creating legal gaps in accountability as well as serious breaches of fundamental rights.

This text has 4 axis : - establish a common framework that contributes to the comprehensive approach to asylum and migration - ensure sharing of responsibility through a new solidarity mechanism - enhance the system's capacity to determine efficiently and effectively a single Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - discourage abuses and prevent unauthorised movements of…

Like Dublin IV before it, the overall approach of the Regulation on asylum and migration management (RAMM) to responsibility allocation is to maintain the status quo but add “corrective” solidarity mechanisms intended to compensate for the outcomes of the standard rules and make them fairer. A deeper overhaul of the criteria on sharing of responsibility is vital to address the system’s dysfunctionalities.

The regulation should refer to the CRPD. Preamble (pmbl.) 43, art. 12 (4) and 13 (4d): as written in art. 7 CRPD, children with disabilities should be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to express their views on matters affecting them, including during the personal interview and upon assessing the best interests of the child. Pmbl 44, art. 13 (4) and 24: should refer to art.

DEAR European Commission, I am representing the umbrella organisation of Czech NGOs assisting migrants and refugees Called Consortium (16 members) and at the same association OPU – Organisation for Aid to Refugees helping to refugees in the Czech Republic for almost 29 years. We drafted together a joint opinion, which is attached. Best regards from Prague [name removed]

Filed in Czech · English published by the European Commission

DEAR Sir or Madam, Please find attached the Position Paper of the German Bar Association on “Asylum & migration management — unified approach to implementing EU policies” in German language. The German Bar Association represents the interests of more than 62.000 German lawmakers. Child for Ms Eva Schriever German Bar Association (Deutscher Anwaltverein — German Bar Association)

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

In Caritas Europa’s position paper on the Pact (attached), we highlight the following concerns: • We are concerned that while the reference to “Dublin” officially disappears from the proposal, the dysfunctional system it entails remains, and will continue to put disproportionate responsibility for processing asylum applications on the EU border states of first arrival.