What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Article 78(2)(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

– having regard to Article 80 of the TFEU, on the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States,

– having regard to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 18, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

– having regard to Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR),

– having regard to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948,

– having regard to the UN Global Compact on Refugees,

 having regard to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention),

 having regard to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast), known as the Dublin III Regulation,

 having regard to Council Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 and (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0270) to reform the Dublin III Regulation,

– having regard to the negotiating mandate adopted by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 19 October 2017, which was approved in Plenary on 16 November 2017, and confirmed by the Conference of Presidents on 17 October 2019,

– having regard to its resolution of 12 April 2016 on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to Migration,

 having regard to the Commission’s European Agenda on Migration of 13 May 2015 (COM(2015)0240),

 having regard to the so-called Malta Declaration of September 2019,

 having regard to the study by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of August 2017 entitled ‘Left in Limbo’, on the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation,

 having regard to the evaluation of the Dublin III Regulation of 2015 and the evaluation of the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation of 2016, carried out on behalf of the Commission by ICF International,

 having regard to the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report 2019/24 of November 2019 entitled ‘Asylum, relocation and return of migrants: time to step up action to address disparities between objectives and results’,

 having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘COVID-19: Guidance on the implementation of relevant EU provisions in the area of asylum and return procedures and on resettlement’ (2020/C 126/02),

 having regard to the report of the European Asylum Support Office of 2 June 2020 on COVID-19 emergency measures in asylum and reception systems,

– having regard to the report entitled ‘Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the European Union’ of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) of June 2020,

 having regard to the implementation assessment by the European Parliament Research Service (EPRS) of the Dublin Regulation of January 2019, drawn up by Dr Amandine Scherrer of the Ex-Post Evaluation Unit of Parliament’s Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value (first part) and by the research team of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), at the request of the Ex-Post Evaluation Unit (second part),

 having regard to other studies commissioned by the European Parliament, in particular the EPRS’s implementation appraisal of the Dublin Regulation and asylum procedures in Europe by Gertrud Malmersjo and Milan Remáč of 2016, the study of the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs (Directorate-General for Internal Policies) on the reform of the Dublin III Regulation by Francesco Maiani of June 2016, the EPRS study ‘The Cost of Non-Europe in Asylum Policy’ by Wouter van Ballegooij and Cecilia Navarra of October 2018, and the EPRS study on the reform of the Dublin system by Anja Radjenovic of March 2019,

 having regard to the hearing of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) held on 19 February 2020,

 having regard to the replies by Member State Parliaments on their work on the Dublin III Regulation provided through the automated European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation system,

 having regard to the answer provided by Germany to a list of five questions sent by the LIBE Chair and the rapporteur to all national authorities involved in the Dublin procedure,

 having regard to the fact-finding journeys by the rapporteur to Bochum (Germany), Ter Apel (Netherlands), Bucharest (Romania), and Lampedusa (Italy),

– having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as to Article 1(1)(e) and Annex 3 of the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

– having regard to the letter from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality,

 having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0245/2020),

A. whereas 1 393 920 asylum seekers applied for international protection in EU+ countries in 2015 and 1 292 740 in 2016, a fourfold increase compared to 2012 (373 375 applications) and 2013 (464 515); whereas the number of applications for international protection in EU+ countries rose again between 2018 (665 920) and 2019 (738 425), equivalent to 0.13 % of the total population of the EU in 2019;

B. whereas children account for almost half of the asylum requests filed in the EU, and about 17 700 unaccompanied minors lodged an application for international protection in 2019; whereas 86 % of them were boys, and 90 % were aged between 14 and 18;

C. whereas a Member State that issues a visa to a third-country national is responsible for examining the application for international protection according to Article 12 of the Dublin III Regulation; whereas, according to Article 14 of the Dublin III Regulation, the application of a third country national or a stateless person who entered the territory of a Member State granting a visa waiver shall be examined by this Member State;

D. whereas there were 145 000 decisions on Dublin requests in 2019; whereas the acceptance rate for decisions on Dublin requests was 62 % in 2019;

E. whereas one-third of Member States hosted 90 % of asylum seekers between 2008 and 2017;

F. whereas the criteria for establishing the responsibility of a Member State for an asylum application include, in hierarchical order, the family unit, the issuance of residence permits or visas, irregular entry or stay, and visa-waived entry; whereas, if none of these criteria apply, the Member State in which an asylum application was first made becomes the Member State responsible under Article 3(2); whereas, as a consequence of the disproportionate use of Article 13, according to which it is the responsibility of the Member State of first irregular entry to examine an asylum application, responsibilities are not distributed fairly among the Member States; whereas several ‘first-entry’ Member States in the Mediterranean, namely Greece, Italy, Malta, Cyprus and Spain, received a large proportion of first time applications, in particular during the 2015-16 crisis;

G. whereas in 2018, Germany (82.8 million inhabitants, 18,6 % of total EU population) recorded the largest number of applications (184 180, or 28 % of total applications, equivalent to 0.22 % of its population), followed by France (66.9 million inhabitants, 15 % of total EU population) with 120 425 applications (19 % of total applications, equivalent to 0 18% of its population), Greece (10.74 million inhabitants, 2.4 % of total EU population) with 66 695 applications (11 % of total applications, 0.62 % of its population), Italy (60.48 million inhabitants, 13.6 % of total EU population) with 59 950 applications (10 % of total applications, 0.01 % of its population), and Spain (46.66 million inhabitants, 10.49 % of total EU population) with 52 700 applications (9 % of total applications, and 0.11 % of its population);

H. whereas between 2016 and 2019, Germany and France issued by far the most Dublin requests (68 % of the EU total), while Spain, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Poland and Czech Republic issued few requests; whereas Spain issued almost no Dublin requests, despite a large and growing number of asylum applications; whereas there are significant differences between countries, with 54.6 % of transfers carried out from Greece, 42.2 % from Sweden, 11.2 % from Germany, 6.7 % from France, and 1.6 % from Italy between 2016 and 2019; whereas there is a significant information gap for a number of countries;

I. whereas the Dublin III Regulation is based on the core assumption that asylum seekers are afforded equal rights across Member States, and that each claim gets a fair examination, wherever the claim is lodged in the EU; whereas this is far from being a reality;

J. whereas Member States have made only very limited use of the dependent persons clause (Article 16) or the humanitarian and discretionary (Article 17) clause in the Regulation; whereas these clauses provide reasonable solutions for family reunification or relocations, including following disembarkations;

K. whereas in most Dublin procedures the provisions on the hierarchy of criteria and the deadlines established are not properly implemented, and transfers are not carried out; whereas in situations involving children and families, these shortcomings are particularly harmful to the best interests of the child and the right of asylum seekers to family reunification;

L. whereas data and studies on the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation highlight routine disregard for family provisions and incorrect application of the principle of the best interests of the child; whereas, for instance, in 2018, the family unit criterion was invoked in just 5 % of ‘take charge’ requests in France (out of 12 000) and in 3.7 % in Germany (out of 17 500), with even lower figures in Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland; underlines that in contrast Greece issued 79.3 % of its ‘take charge’ requests on the basis of the family unity criterion in 2018; whereas applications for family reunification are less frequently accepted (48 % of cases), compared to the average rate of acceptance for all procedures (67.6 %); whereas effective implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of the Regulation might ensure the effectiveness of asylum seekers’ right to family life and family unity;

M. whereas there have been significant shortcomings in the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation, including during the high number of arrivals in 2015 and the COVID-19 pandemic, undermining trust between Member States and the right to international protection, and leading to violations of fundamental rights; whereas the Dublin III rules have proven to be unsuited to dealing with substantial influxes of migrants, resulting in a system that places excessive responsibility and burdens upon a few Member States;

N. whereas the temporary solidarity mechanism for search and rescue in the Mediterranean agreed in the Malta Declaration, and signed on 23 September 2019 by Germany, France, Italy and Malta, was valid for a period of at least six months; whereas no other Member State joined this ad hoc agreement;

O. whereas the preventive action provision (Article 33) has never been used;

P. whereas Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation allows detention as an exceptional measure ‘to secure transfer procedures’ if there is a ‘significant risk’ of the applicant absconding; whereas this definition remains unclear and its interpretation varies between Member State;

Q. whereas there is lack of compliance on procedural guarantees and safeguards for asylum seekers, especially children; whereas the length of the procedures and the lack of predictable outcomes coupled with poor reception conditions and social precariousness have impacts on the well-being of asylum-seekers, who in many cases have undergone traumatic experiences back home and/or on their way to the EU;

S. whereas some of these flaws are inherent to the design of the Dublin Regulation and cannot be solved through better implementation alone;

T. whereas information gaps prevent a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation; whereas statistical information is not systematically and consistently provided by Member States, and not with the same level of detail or frequency; whereas key information gaps cover grounds for requests, duration of procedures, resources, withdrawn applications, failed transfers, appeals processes and detention;

U. whereas on 6 November 2017 Parliament adopted a legislative Resolution on the Dublin IV recast proposal by a two-thirds majority;

Incorporating the principle of solidarity into the Common European Asylum System

1. Considers that the current Dublin III Regulation imposes a disproportionate responsibility on a minority of Member States, in particular when high numbers of arrivals occur; considers that owing to their geographical location the first country of entry criterion in the Dublin III Regulation puts an unprecedented and disproportionate burden on frontline countries in terms of registration and reception of asylum seekers; points out that the Dublin III Regulation, as designed and implemented, has failed to guarantee its main objective, namely swiftly determining the Member State responsible for an asylum application, and thus to ensure a fair distribution of responsibility between Member States, and effective and swift access to asylum procedures;

2. Stresses that the introduction of hotspots combined with the temporary relocation programme proposed by the Commission in 2015 was intended to facilitate the management of asylum applications when applicants enter EU territory, and was a pragmatic approach that levels out the flaws in the Dublin III Regulation that were becoming apparent at that time; recalls, further, the contribution of EU agencies such as EASO and Frontex to supporting Member States facing excessive burdens in the implementation of the asylum acquis, and stresses the need to improve cooperation between these agencies;