REPORT on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection
14.4.2008 - (COM(2007)0298 – C6‑0196/2007 – 2007/0112(CNS)) - *
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Rapporteur: Martine Roure
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection
(COM(2007)0298 – C6‑0196/2007 – 2007/0112(CNS))
(Consultation procedure)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2007)0298),
– having regard to Article 63(3) and (4) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6‑0196/2007),
– having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and to the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6‑0148/2008),
1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;
2. Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;
3. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;
4. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;
5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(5) In view of the right of beneficiaries of international protection to reside in other Member States than the one which granted them international protection, it is necessary to ensure that these Member States are informed of the protection background of the persons concerned, so that they can comply with their obligations regarding the respect of the principle of non-refoulement. For this purpose the long-term resident’s EC residence permit granted to beneficiaries of international protection should contain a remark providing information about the fact that international protection was granted by a Member State to its holder. Provided that international protection has not been withdrawn, this remark should be reproduced in the long-term resident’s EC residence permit issued by the second Member State. |
(5) In view of the right of beneficiaries of international protection to reside in other Member States than the one which granted them international protection, it is necessary to ensure that these Member States are informed of the protection background of the persons concerned, so that they can comply with their obligations regarding the respect of the principle of non-refoulement. For this purpose the long-term resident’s EC residence permit granted to beneficiaries of international protection should contain a remark providing information about the fact that international protection was granted by a Member State to its holder. Provided that international protection has not been withdrawn, this remark should be reproduced in the long-term resident’s EC residence permit issued by the second Member State. However, the second Member State may not use this remark as a pretext, whether directly or indirectly, to refuse to grant long-term residence in its territory. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 10 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(10a) Under the terms of this Directive the granting of long term residence status should not imply the revocation or withdrawal of the rights held by refugees, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, and members of their family under Directive 2004/83/EC; | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – paragraph 1 Directive (EC) No 109/2003 Article 2 – point f | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – paragraph 3 Directive (EC) No 109/2003 Article 4 – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 3 a (new) Directive 2003/109/EC Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – paragraph 3 b (new) Directive (EC) No 109/2003 Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – paragraph 6 Directive (EC) No 109/2003 Article 12 – paragraph 3 a | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – paragraph 8 Directive (EC) No 109/2003 Article 25 – subparagraph 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
1. Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents
On the occasion of the 1999 Tampere European Council the Member States stressed the need to guarantee fair treatment for Member State nationals residing legally in the European Union. In particular, any third-country national residing on a long-term basis in a Member State should be granted a set of uniform rights that was as close as possible to those enjoyed by European Union citizens.[1]
Acting on the Tampere conclusions, Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents aimed to create a uniform status for such nationals and to approximate Member States’ legislation in order to guarantee such residents equal treatment throughout EU territory, regardless of the Member State they were resident in.[2]
Under the Directive Member States must grant long-term resident status after a period of five years of legal, continuous residence in a Member State.
To obtain long-term resident status, third-country nationals must provide evidence for themselves and their families (if dependent):
– of stable resources which are sufficient to maintain them without recourse to the social assistance system of the Member State concerned;
– of sickness insurance.
The Member States can require third-country nationals to fulfil further integration conditions (such as adequate knowledge of a national language). They can refuse to grant long-term resident status on grounds of public policy or public security.
Having acquired long-term resident status, the person in question enjoys a series of entitlements under the same conditions as nationals of the Member State, including access to employment, education and vocational training, social security, social assistance, freedom of access to the entire territory of the Member State concerned, etc.
Long-term residents may exercise the right to reside in the territory of Member States other than the one which granted them long-term residence status, for a period exceeding three months, provided that certain conditions set out in the proposal, such as the exercise of an economic activity or the pursuit of studies or training, are met.
Member States may nevertheless limit the number of residence permits. At the same time, for reasons of labour market policy, Member States may give preference to Union citizens.
Anyone with long-term resident status has greater protection against any expulsion decision. Behaviour justifying an expulsion decision must constitute an actual and sufficiently serious threat to public order or public security. Before taking a decision to expel a long-term resident, Member States undertake to give consideration to a number of factors (the person’s age, duration of residence, etc.).
1. Extension of the Directive’s scope to include beneficiaries of international protection
Directive 2003/109/EC is applicable to any third-country national residing legally on the territory of a Member State.
Despite this, refugees and persons authorised to reside in a Member State on the basis of a temporary or subsidiary form of protection were excluded by the Council from the scope of the Directive at the time of its adoption. The reason given was their precarious situation or the shortness of their stay.
And yet the proposal presented by the Commission in 2001, on which the Directive is based, provided for refugees to be eligible for long-term resident status. The European Parliament also supported this position.
In a joint declaration of 8 May 2003, the Council and Commission, conscious of this lacuna, expressed a desire for the Directive to be extended to include the beneficiaries of international protection.
The aim of this proposal is to implement that declaration by bringing beneficiaries of international protection within the scope of Council Directive 2003/109/EC.
2. The rapporteur’s position
The rapporteur supports this proposal to broaden the scope of the directive on the status of long-term residents to include beneficiaries of international protection. She considers it regrettable, nonetheless, that the Council preferred this option to that of providing for a Community mechanism on the transfer of responsibility for protection.
The Directive grants the right, under certain conditions, to establish themselves in a second Member State only to long-term residents, and not to beneficiaries of international protection per se. Although establishment in a second Member State can in certain cases lead, sooner or later, to a transfer of responsibility for protection, this issue does not fall within the scope of the present directive. The implication of this is that applications for transfer of responsibility for protection continue to be governed by the 1951 Geneva Convention and, in some cases, by the European agreement on the transfer of responsibility for refugees concluded in the framework of the Council of Europe.
A Community mechanism on transfer of protection presupposes mutual recognition of asylum decisions and a sufficient measure of harmonisation of asylum procedures in Member States. This condition is not currently met.
The rapporteur therefore takes the view that extending the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC is an interim measure pending a fresh proposal providing for mutual recognition and transfer of responsibility as regards international protection. This would allow the special situation of refugees to be taken into account and make it possible to grant them rights of free movement and establishment within the EU as soon as their status was recognised.
§
The rapporteur shares the Commission’s view that it is crucial that this Directive should apply to both refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Subsidiary protection is increasingly being granted to people in need of international protection, and it would be unacceptable to exclude such a large number of people from the rights conferred by Directive 2003/109/EC. Furthermore, the conclusions of the Tampere Summit and the Green Paper on the future Common European Asylum System provide for the creation of a common asylum procedure and the introduction of a uniform status applicable throughout EU territory. This is based on the wish to make the Union into a single area of protection for refugees. It would therefore be inconsistent with these objectives to build into this instrument a distinction between the rights of refugees and the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Finally, the main criterion for acquiring long-term residence status is the duration of residence on the territory of a Member State, and not the status of the person concerned.
The rapporteur is also insistent that the time spent processing the application should be taken into account in calculating the five years of residence preceding application for long-term residence status. The legal status of beneficiaries of international protection becomes operative with their first application. Recognition of that status testifies to the prior period of legal residence. Also, the process of considering an application can be a long one, depending on the Member State involved, and a beneficiary of international protection starts the process of integration in the host country as soon as the procedure begins. The rapporteur would add that in a number of cases people make an initial application for temporary protection before becoming eligible to make an application for international protection. When the temporary protection leads on to international protection, it should also be factored into the duration of the procedure.
The rapporteur would like beneficiaries of international protection to be exempted from the material conditions (stable resources and sickness insurance) for the granting of long-term resident status, in recognition of the vulnerability of their situation. It would be particularly inconsistent to impose a minimum resource condition on them given that Article 11 of Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in the Member States allows Member States to place restrictions on asylum seekers’ access to the employment market for a period of up to 12 months after the date of lodging their application for protection.
Your rapporteur would like the national integration criteria that can be applied by the Member States to be framed in more precise terms to take account of the particular situation of beneficiaries of international protection. Linguistic or cultural knowledge criteria cannot be applied to refugees in the same way as to other people, given the special status of the former. These criteria must, furthermore, be consistent with the integration criteria provided for in Directive 2004/83/EC.
Given that there is no transfer of responsibility for international protection to the second Member State, it is vital to ensure that the principle of non-refoulement is observed by that State. This point is all the more important when a beneficiary of international protection is granted long-term resident status in a second Member State after five years of residence there.
The Commission proposes that Article 8 of the Directive should provide for this information to be entered in the long-term residence permit issued by the first Member State. However, in the event of expulsion, it provides only for simple consultation of the Member State that granted international protection. This mechanism must be reinforced in order to safeguard the principle of non-refoulement. Your rapporteur therefore proposes that the authorities in the second Member States be required to wait for the written response of the first Member State, so as to guarantee that the person is not sent back to a country where he or she would be in danger. If that Member State confirms that the person concerned is still enjoying international protection, expulsion from the second Member State will be possible only to the Member State that originally granted them such protection.
OPINION of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (3.3.2008)
for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection
(COM(2007)0298 – C6‑0196/2007 – 2007/0112(CNS))
Draftsman: Nickolay Mladenov
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The aim of the proposal is to offer refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection (hereinafter referred to as ‘beneficiaries of international protection’) legal certainty about their residence in a Member State and rights which are comparable to those of EU nationals after 5 years of legal residence, thus closing a gap left open by Directive 2004/83/EC. This is done by deleting the exceptions to the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC concerning beneficiaries of international protection, while taking into account, where necessary, their specific position as compared to other third-country nationals. Beneficiaries of international protection are currently not entitled to long-term resident status under Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents.
The proposal states that the prospect of obtaining long-term residence status in a Member State after a certain time is an important element for the full integration of beneficiaries of international protection in the Member States of residence. This proposal which aims to amend Directive 2003/109/EC can be considered as a tool for integrating third-country nationals, who are beneficiaries of international protection, in the host Member State and is therefore a matter of immigration policy.
The proposal includes four key elements:
a) It allows beneficiaries of international protection to acquire long-term resident status in the Member State which has granted them protection subject to the same conditions as other third-county nationals.
b) It sets out the conditions under which long-term residents, including beneficiaries of international protection, may exercise their right of residence in another Member State.
c) It does not include a mechanism for transfer of responsibility for protection under community law[1].
d) It ensures the respect of the principle of ‘non-refoulement’, in cases where a beneficiary of international protection, who has already obtained long-term resident status in a Member State, is also granted long-term residence status in another Member State after having resided there for 5 years.
In the light of the above, your rapporteur:
a) Supports the European Commission’s initiative to close the gap, resulting from the exclusion of refugees and beneficiaries of international protection from the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC.
b) Considers that the extension of the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC to both refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection is important with regard to the respect of the equal treatment of people benefiting from international protection; underlines that excluding persons benefiting from subsidiary protection from the scope of the proposal will result in a more complicated legal framework that will markedly reduce the benefits expected from the proposed Directive.
c) Supports the inclusion of the period between the date on which the application for international protection is lodged and the date on which the residence permit is granted in the calculation of the five year residence duration necessary for applying for long-term resident status.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Foreign Affairs calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
Text proposed by the Commission | Amendments by Parliament |
Amendment 1 RECITAL 10 A (new) | |
|
(10a) Under the terms of this Directive the granting of long-term residence status should not imply the revocation or withdrawal of the rights of refugees or subjects of international protection acquired under Directive 2004/83/EC; |
PROCEDURE
Title |
Extension of the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC to beneficiaries of international protection |
|||||||
References |
COM(2007)0298 – C6-0196/2007 – 2007/0112(CNS) |
|||||||
Committee responsible |
LIBE |
|||||||
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
AFET 9.7.2007 |
|
|
|
||||
Drafts(wo)man Date appointed |
Nickolay Mladenov 12.9.2007 |
|
|
|||||
Discussed in committee |
5.11.2007 |
11.2.2008 |
27.2.2008 |
|
||||
Date adopted |
27.2.2008 |
|
|
|
||||
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
50 2 0 |
||||||
Members present for the final vote |
Elmar Brok, Colm Burke, Véronique De Keyser, Michael Gahler, Bronisław Geremek, Maciej Marian Giertych, Alfred Gomolka, Richard Howitt, Jana Hybášková, Anna Ibrisagic, Metin Kazak, Maria Eleni Koppa, Helmut Kuhne, Joost Lagendijk, Vytautas Landsbergis, Johannes Lebech, Emilio Menéndez del Valle, Francisco José Millán Mon, Philippe Morillon, Pasqualina Napoletano, Vural Öger, Cem Özdemir, Justas Vincas Paleckis, Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Alojz Peterle, Hubert Pirker, Samuli Pohjamo, Bernd Posselt, Michel Rocard, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Libor Rouček, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, György Schöpflin, Hannes Swoboda, Charles Tannock, Geoffrey Van Orden, Ari Vatanen, Kristian Vigenin, Zbigniew Zaleski, Josef Zieleniec |
|||||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Mariela Velichkova Baeva, Cristian Silviu Buşoi, Andrew Duff, Árpád Duka-Zólyomi, David Hammerstein, Jaromír Kohlíček, Erik Meijer, Nickolay Mladenov, Józef Pinior, Inger Segelström, Marcello Vernola |
|||||||
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
Renate Weber |
|||||||
- [1] Requests for transfer of responsibility for protection remain governed by the 1951 Geneva convention and by the European Agreement on transfer of responsibility for refugees concluded in the framework of the Council of Europe, where applicable.
PROCEDURE
Title |
Extension of the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC to beneficiaries of international protection |
|||||||
References |
COM(2007)0298 – C6-0196/2007 – 2007/0112(CNS) |
|||||||
Date of consulting Parliament |
26.6.2007 |
|||||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
LIBE 9.7.2007 |
|||||||
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) Date announced in plenary |
AFET 9.7.2007 |
DEVE 9.7.2007 |
EMPL 9.7.2007 |
|
||||
Not delivering opinions Date of decision |
DEVE 19.7.2007 |
EMPL 27.6.2007 |
|
|
||||
Rapporteur(s) Date appointed |
Martine Roure 10.9.2007 |
|
|
|||||
Discussed in committee |
9.10.2007 |
27.2.2008 |
27.3.2008 |
|
||||
Date adopted |
27.3.2008 |
|
|
|
||||
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
34 0 1 |
||||||
Members present for the final vote |
Alexander Alvaro, Philip Bradbourn, Carlos Coelho, Esther De Lange, Gérard Deprez, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Armando França, Patrick Gaubert, Roland Gewalt, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Lívia Járóka, Ewa Klamt, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Stavros Lambrinidis, Henrik Lax, Roselyne Lefrançois, Sarah Ludford, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Rareş-Lucian Niculescu, Athanasios Pafilis, Martine Roure, Inger Segelström, Csaba Sógor, Vladimir Urutchev, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Manfred Weber, Tatjana Ždanoka |
|||||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Edit Bauer, Sophia in ’t Veld, Jean Lambert, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Bill Newton Dunn, Nicolae Vlad Popa |
|||||||
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
Manolis Mavrommatis |
|||||||