Texto integral 
Processo : 2013/2545(RSP)
Ciclo de vida em sessão
Ciclo relativo ao documento : O-000021/2013

Textos apresentados :

O-000021/2013 (B7-0119/2013)

Debates :

PV 20/05/2013 - 18
CRE 20/05/2013 - 18

Votação :

Textos aprovados :

Relato integral dos debates
Segunda-feira, 20 de Maio de 2013 - Estrasburgo Edição revista

18. Regime voluntário de recolocação permanente da União Europeia (debate)
Vídeo das intervenções

  Elnök. − A következő napirendi pont a Juan Fernando López Aguilar által az Állampolgári Jogi, Bel- és Igazságügyi Bizottság nevében a Bizottsághoz intézett, az önkéntes állandó uniós áthelyezési programról szóló szóbeli választ igénylő kérdésről folytatott vita. (0-000021/2013) (2013/2545(RSP))


  Kinga Göncz, on behalf of the author (Mr López Aguilar). − Mr President, Mr López Aguilar has asked me as Vice-Chair to take the floor on his behalf as Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE).

On 21 February the LIBE Committee voted on an oral question to be addressed to the Commission. The LIBE Committee is concerned about the absence so far of any initiative by the Commission relating to the establishment of a voluntary permanent relocation scheme.

Allow me to remind you briefly of the history of relocation and the importance that our Parliament has always attached to relocation, especially in the context of intra-EU solidarity. Relocation is the process whereby beneficiaries of international protection are transferred from one Member State to another Member State, where they will immediately be granted equivalent protection. It is an expression of solidarity for Member States that face specific and disproportionate pressure on their asylum and reception system, due in particular to their geographic and demographic situation.

In October 2008 the European Council endorsed the concept of intra-EU relocation of beneficiaries of international protection. In May 2009, the European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, at that time Jacques Barrot, launched the proposal for a pilot project for relocation from Malta, called Eurema. It was the first multilateral intra-EU relocation initiative. In view of the influx of asylum seekers from Libya and the pressure faced by Malta in April 2011, on a proposal from Commissioner Cecilia Malmström this pilot project was extended.

The European Asylum Support Office (EASO), moreover, has among its tasks to promote, facilitate and coordinate exchanges of information and other activities related to relocation within the Union.

In its Communication in December 2011 on enhanced intra-EU solidarity, the Commission expressed again its strong support for relocation of beneficiaries of international protection within the Union and undertook to propose a voluntary permanent relocation scheme in 2012, subject to a further impact assessment by the EASO.

The impact assessment, delivered as a fact-finding report on intra-EU relocation activities from Malta, was concluded by EASO in 2012. In its conclusion on 8 March 2012, the Council clearly stated that further steps on the voluntary relocation within the EU of beneficiaries of international protection should be examined and taken in light of the lessons learnt. The Justice and Home Affairs Council of 25 and 26 October 2012 informally discussed the whole issue of the Eurema project.

In its resolution of 11 September 2012 on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum, Parliament called for a proposal for a permanent intra-EU relocation mechanism. It urged the Commission to give consideration in its legislative proposal to the use of an EU distribution key for relocation of beneficiaries of international protection, based on appropriate indicators. Since then, however, there have been no signs that the Commission is ready to come forward with its promised proposal for a voluntary, permanent Union relocation scheme.

My question is simple and straightforward: when does the Commission intend to publish such a proposal to fulfil its commitment of December 2011?


  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, thank you to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) for tabling this question.

As you know, and as Mrs Göncz mentioned, we have had the EUREMA relocation project and through that the European Union has shown a concrete example of solidarity to a Member State in need of assistance – Malta – as it had to cope with the highest number of asylum seekers per capita in the European Union.

I am personally very committed to relocation as a tool and as a policy and I am happy that we have been able to assist Malta a little bit with the pressure they have been facing.

The question put by the LIBE Committee notes, correctly, that the Commission was planning to propose a voluntary permanent relocation scheme. Indeed, this was my intention. However, we have to take the political reality into account. Since the last relocation pledging conference in May two years ago, only seven Member States have chosen to participate in the EUREMA II project and so far they have relocated only 14 people between them.

Based on that experience, a legislative instrument on voluntary relocation would face difficulties in the Council. In fact we did have a lunch discussion with the Ministers of the Interior on this, and a huge majority of the Member States, almost all of them, were strongly opposed to a legislative instrument.

By contrast, at the same time, 254 persons have been relocated bilaterally by Member States in associated countries that are not participating in EUREMA II. Against this background we must look at all the available options to make progress in this matter.

We want to encourage relocation activities as a continuous response to genuine needs for assistance and this could happen to any country, not only Malta. This is why I am pleased to announce today a plan for an annual relocation forum. As part of the implementation of the common European asylum system, the Commission will very soon, together with the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), table regular reports on particular pressures on Member States’ asylum systems.

These reports will show us where relocation can be a useful way of reducing the pressure. The relocation forum would then meet and discuss the reports and Member States can indicate whether they consider that they are in need themselves of assistance through relocation or whether they would be interested in pledging places for relocation.

Under the new Asylum and Migration Fund, the Commission has proposed that there will be a EUR 6 000 lump sum available for relocation activities per relocated person. This funding would be allocated to Member States on a regular basis and for the first time when approving their multiannual programme. And the relocation forum: Member States can choose to use that money. This approach could hopefully encourage more Member States to offer places for relocation.

As Parliament very well knows, the new Asylum and Migration Fund negotiations are not complete. Some details will still need to be reflected upon once there is a final outcome on the budget.

But with the EUREMA project, we have had some interesting experiences and that has been evaluated. We have learnt from good experiences and we are also trying to improve what did not work, but that was only with regard to Malta. With the new relocation forum, it would be possible to provide any Member State under pressure with assistance, provided that other Member States are willing to offer them such assistance.


  Véronique Mathieu Houillon, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, Schengen nous oblige à une gestion concertée et responsable des flux migratoires puisque c'est désormais un défi commun qui se pose à nous: celui du contrôle des frontières extérieures.

Cela implique une approche responsable et solidaire de la gestion de nos frontières extérieures et du traitement des demandes d'asile. Nous avons déjà beaucoup fait pour coordonner nos politiques, et un Bureau européen d'appui pour l'asile a été mis en place.

Les négociations du "paquet asile" ont abouti et leur résultat sera bientôt soumis au vote dans ce même hémicycle. L'agence Frontex a été réformée et renforcée, notamment par la mise en place d'équipes de garde-frontières européens et la possibilité pour l'agence d'acheter son propre matériel, tandis que l'agence EUROSUR de surveillance des frontières extérieures est toujours en cours de création, son mandat étant, en ce moment même, négocié au sein de la commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures.

Cependant, il existe des disparités flagrantes que nous ne pouvons pas nier. Les pays limitrophes européens sont fortement exposés à d'importants flux de migrants et de demandeurs d'asile et doivent en assumer les conséquences. 332 000 demandes d'asile ont été déposées en Europe en 2012, ce qui représente une hausse de 10 % par rapport à l'année précédente. Par ailleurs, les demandes d'asile sont inégalement réparties au sein de l'Union européenne. En 2012, le plus grand nombre de demandes ont été enregistrées en Allemagne, avec 77 500 demandes, puis en France, 60 600, suivie de la Suède, 43 900. L'Allemagne, la France, la Suède, le Royaume-Uni et la Belgique concentrent 70 % des demandes d'asile mais, en comparaison avec le nombre d'habitants par État membre, les plus hauts taux de demandes d'asile sont enregistrés à Malte, avec 5 000 demandes d'asile par million d'habitants, en Suède, soit 4 600 demandes d'asile par million d'habitants, ainsi qu'au Luxembourg, où le chiffre est de 3 900 pour un million d'habitants.

Nous devons nous rappeler, aussi, que la solidarité est indissociable de la construction européenne. Elle sous-tend nos actions. La solidarité, ce n'est pas seulement un principe fondateur européen, c'est également un garant de l'efficacité du fonctionnement de l'Union européenne. Dès lors, pourquoi, alors même que la Commission européenne avait annoncé vouloir un mécanisme européen, n'est-elle pas allée au bout de son idée? Certes, quelques États membres sont réticents à l'idée d'un mécanisme européen – je termine, Monsieur le Président –, mais un système de répartition qui soit volontaire ou obligatoire est un point qui mérite, pour le moins, une discussion et un débat.

Madame la Commissaire, vous nous apportez une réponse partielle, en évoquant un forum annuel de répartition. Nous avons bien compris que certains États membres étaient solidaires; vous devrez veiller à ce que cette solidarité soit réellement mise en place vis-à-vis des personnes qui ont la protection internationale.


  Sylvie Guillaume, au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, la solidarité a toujours été un principe directeur de la politique européenne d'asile. La répartition des bénéficiaires d'une protection internationale entre les États constitue très certainement une des manifestations les plus concrètes de l'expression de cette solidarité intra-européenne.

Mais un bref examen des statistiques rend bien compte des différentes cartographies possibles de la situation de l'asile en Europe. Malte, l'un des pays dont la densité de population est la plus forte au monde, accueille le plus grand nombre de demandeurs d'asile – nous en avons déjà parlé – proportionnellement au nombre de ses habitants. Les derniers chiffres relèvent un taux de quasiment 22 demandeurs d'asile pour 1 000 habitants – c'est un autre calcul que celui qui a été fait précédemment, mais il revient au même –, alors que la moyenne européenne se situe à environ 0,5. La France, par exemple, qui est le deuxième pays destinataire de demandes d'asile au sein de l'Union européenne, en valeur absolue, apparaît à la quatorzième place, quand on privilégie comme indicateur la population totale des pays concernés.

La répartition a donc un rôle important à jouer en soutenant les États dont les systèmes d'asile n'auraient pas ou plus les capacités nécessaires pour accueillir dignement les demandeurs.

Dans l'attente de cette proposition législative, le Parlement a, par ailleurs, invité la Commission à explorer quelques pistes innovantes, en examinant notamment les différentes options d'une répartition sur la base d'indicateurs appropriés. Jusqu'à présent, la répartition s'applique à un seul État – Malte – et elle est limitée en termes de nombre de personnes concernées – vous y avez fait allusion –, en dépit toutefois de l'engagement de certains États membres, qu'il faut saluer à cet égard.

Cette mise en œuvre à une échelle réduite n'offre, par voie de conséquence, qu'une visibilité très limitée de l'intérêt de la répartition comme outil efficace. Dans ce contexte, qu'est-ce qui permettrait d'expliquer, entre autres, le retard qu'a mis la Commission à publier une proposition – même si vous en faites une aujourd'hui – de mécanisme volontaire et permanent? Est-ce la frilosité de nombreux États membres, alors que ce mécanisme fonctionnerait, rappelons-le, sur une base volontaire. Certains États membres disent craindre notamment que les États bénéficiant de telles mesures de solidarité ne se défaussent ainsi trop facilement de leurs responsabilités en matière d'asile et n'engagent pas les réformes nécessaires.

Cette situation démontre à quel point la solidarité avec tous et la responsabilité de chacun doivent aller de pair. La mise en œuvre du principe de solidarité ne peut pas se concevoir sans une harmonisation effective des pratiques d'asile et la réciproque est aussi vraie.


  Rui Tavares, em nome do Grupo Verts/ALE. – Caros colegas, eu falo aqui também enquanto relator do programa de reinstalação de refugiados, ou seja, reinstalação de refugiados que estão em países terceiros para dentro do território da União. Já durante o processo de elaboração do meu relatório apoiei o relatório de iniciativa do nosso colega Triantaphyllides sobre relocalização de refugiados, ou seja, refugiados que já estão em países da União, mas que podem ser redistribuídos para que a solidariedade efetiva entre Estados-Membros se verifique.

A existência de um programa efetivo de relocalização de refugiados dentro da União seria muito importante por várias razões, limito-me a citar algumas: desde logo, porque nos permite fazer face a crises humanitárias como aquela que se está a viver agora na Síria, onde a União Europeia tem também necessidade de exercer o seu peso no jogo geopolítico. Chipre já disse que poderia fazer a relocalização de refugiados se eles não ficassem só no território cipriota. Chipre está a poucos quilómetros da costa síria, a poucos quilómetros da região turca de Hatay, onde estão centenas de milhares de refugiados, e este passo da União Europeia poderia ajudar a desbloquear aí uma crise humanitária muito importante.

Não há um programa efetivo de reinstalação sem a contrapartida da relocalização, essa é a minha segunda razão e, como terceira razão, eu diria que o Conselho, que lamentavelmente não participa neste debate, tem sempre insistido que o artigo 80.° dos Tratados, sobre solidariedade entre os Estados-Membros, não se aplica como base legal das nossas legislações porque se aplica sempre como base programática de todos os Tratados. Ora, está agora na altura de provarem aquilo que dizem ser verdade em relação aos Tratados, iniciando um programa de relocalização entre Estados-Membros.


  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, as this question makes clear, the report calls for the Commission to publish its proposals on a voluntary permanent Union relocation scheme, as promised since December 2011. It is the intention of this scheme that Member States can request assistance in the relocation of refugees and asylum seekers across EU borders. The UK, of course, has a long history of accepting refugees and asylum seekers in very significant numbers over centuries.

If the proposed scheme is voluntary then what is the point? Member States could continue to determine their own responses to particular circumstances in relation to their own ability to respond, which is exactly what they should do. Asylum and immigration policy should remain under national control. It is easy to understand why the Commission does not want to come up with a scheme that will be unworkable in any case. UKIP MEPs will vote against.


  Κυριάκος Τριανταφυλλίδης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θέλω να ευχαριστήσω την Επίτροπο για την πρόταση που μόλις τώρα μας ανακοίνωσε, μια πρόταση σχετικά με ένα φόρουμ μετεγκατάστασης που σίγουρα θα μελετήσουμε. Όμως αυτή η εισήγηση δεν μπορεί να αντικαταστήσει την υποσχεθείσα πρόταση για ένα κοινό πρόγραμμα μετεγκατάστασης. Η αποτυχία της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής να προτείνει κάτι συγκεκριμένο για τη μετεγκατάσταση προσφύγων την φέρνει αντιμέτωπη με την συντριπτική πλειοψηφία του Κοινοβουλίου, το οποίο στις 11 Σεπτεμβρίου του 2012 υπερψήφισε σχετική έκθεση για την αλληλεγγύη στον τομέα του ασύλου.

Σήμερα, κύριε Πρόεδρε, περισσότερο από ποτέ, εν μέσω της χειρότερης οικονομικής κρίσης που διέρχεται η Ευρώπη στη σύγχρονη ιστορία της, υπάρχει ανάγκη να στηριχθούν τα κράτη μέλη που αντιμετωπίζουν δυσανάλογες ευθύνες. Γνωρίζω βεβαίως τις προκλήσεις που θέτει ένας τέτοιος μηχανισμός και τις ενστάσεις που έχουν ορισμένα κράτη μέλη. Αυτά όμως δεν θα έπρεπε να εμποδίσουν την Επιτροπή να σεβαστεί τις δεσμεύσεις της και να δημοσιεύσει πρόταση που θα προτείνει έναν μηχανισμό με βάση την αξιολόγηση του EUREMA, ο οποίος θα επιτρέπει το ενδεχόμενο μετεγκατάστασης προσφύγων μεταξύ κρατών μελών, ώστε από τη μία να προστατεύονται επαρκώς τα δικαιώματα των προσφύγων και από την άλλη να βοηθούνται τα κράτη μέλη που υποφέρουν από ειδικές και δυσανάλογες πιέσεις για να τις αντιμετωπίσουν με επιτυχία.


  President. − I have been informed by the Secretariat that Ms Metsola is our new Member from Malta. This will be her first intervention, so I congratulate her. Ms Metsola, you have the floor for one and a half minutes.


  Roberta Metsola (PPE). - Fl-ewwel intervent tiegħi f'dan il-Parlament se nitkellem fuq suġġett li jmiss valur fundamentali tagħna l-Ewropej: is-solidarjetà, u ta' importanza kbira għalina l-Maltin: l-immigrazzjoni u l-ażil. Mis-sena 2002 'l hawn eluf ta' immigranti daħlu Malta mill-Afrika ta' fuq. Ħarbu l-gwaj biex ifittxu futur aħjar, u tajnihom il-kenn. Ir-responsabilità ta' pajjiżna hi li jagħti l-protezzjoni u d-drittijiet kollha lil dawn il-persuni li huma vittmi taċ-ċirkustanzi, u mad-drittijiet umani ma hemmx kompromessi.

Kif qalet il-Kummissarju, u ta' dan nirringrazzjaha, il-pressjoni fuq pajjiżna ilha tinħass. Il-pressjoni hi tqila u teħtieġ azzjoni effettiva, konkreta u permanenti mill-Unjoni Ewropea. Il-Proġett EUREMA kien pass fid-direzzjoni t-tajba, imma ma nistgħux nieqfu hawn u rridu nagħmlu iktar għaliex din hija kwistjoni Ewropea. Tajjeb li jsiru diskorsi, tajjeb li joħorġu dikjarazzjonijiet, iżda dawn ma jkollhom l-ebda sustanza jekk dawk ikunu biss wegħdiet sbieħ. Is-solidarjetà trid tissaħħaħ u tissarraf. Issa jmiss il-fażi tal-azzjoni u din trid tkun azzjoni effettiva, konkreta u permanenti. Ma tistax tkun soluzzjoni tranżitorja jew temporanja. Bis-skema tar-rilokazzjoni permanenti jinħoloq mekkaniżmu effiċjenti, tinqata' l-burokrazija żejda u tiġi ffaċilitata r-rilokazzjoni ta' min għandu bżonn protezzjoni internazzjonali.

Nistennew li l-Kummissjoni Ewropea tagħtina data definittiva ta' meta se tipproponi li tidħol fis-seħħ skema volontarja permanenti ta' rilokazzjoni. Ma jistax ikun li d-diskors jibqa' sħab fl-ajru u nistennew azzjoni u riżultati.


  Claude Moraes (S&D). - Mr President, as the previous speaker rightly said with regard to the evaluation of the EUREMA project in Malta in October, it is very clear that we needed a voluntary permanent relocation scheme. As the Commissioner very honestly said, we cannot have such a scheme if the Council sets its face against a permanent legislative solution.

We are here today with the oral question for the simple reason that the Member States are not providing the solidarity which we in this House wish to see. We have a situation where the Commission is announcing, in the face of this resistance by the Council, an annual relocation forum.

After a drop in asylum figures since the 1990s, we now have a genuine burden-sharing crisis, where some countries, such as Greece and Malta and my own Member State, have to deal with higher asylum numbers. This is a real crisis, and we have to see whether this solution is something that we can work with. We now all have to work to see whether these kinds of solutions are something we can work with when the Member States will not help us by coming up with a permanent legislative proposal.


  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE). - Κυρία Επίτροπε, θα ήθελα να πω πάρα πολλά αλλά θα προσπαθήσω να είμαι σύντομος και περιεκτικός. Τρία χρόνια πριν όπως θυμάστε, όταν συζητούσαμε το πρόγραμμα για την επανεγκατάσταση από τρίτες χώρες, είχα υποβάλει ως εισηγητής του Ευρωπαϊκού Λαϊκού Κόμματος πρόταση που είχαν συνυπογράψει συνάδελφοι από άλλες πολιτικές ομάδες για την συμπερίληψη σε εκείνη την πρόταση και της εσωτερικής επανεγκατάστασης. Εσείς τότε, από το βήμα της Ολομέλειας, μου είχατε πει ότι η Επιτροπή θα επανέλθει με συγκεκριμένη πρόταση για τη μετεγκατάσταση και ότι για τεχνικούς λόγους δεν έπρεπε να συμπεριληφθεί η πρόταση στην τότε συζήτηση. Όταν στην συνέχεια τέθηκε πάλι το ζήτημα, πολλά κράτη μέλη εξέφρασαν στο Συμβούλιο την αντίθεσή τους. Έχουμε μια νέα μετάθεση ευθυνών και λέμε ότι, αφού υπάρχει αυτό το πρόβλημα, δεν μπορούμε να βρούμε απάντηση. Αυτή η μετάθεση ευθυνών όμως, κυρία Επίτροπε, συνιστά τελικά υποκρισία. Συνιστά δε υποκρισία διότι τη στιγμή που συζητούμε για «πακέτο ασύλου», εμείς οι ίδιοι διαπιστώνουμε την ανάγκη για περισσότερη αλληλεγγύη και για μηχανισμούς που θα υποστηρίξουν αυτή την αλληλεγγύη. Αυτή η αλληλεγγύη όμως δεν μπορεί να είναι μόνο θεωρητική, πρέπει να περιλαμβάνει και στην πράξη ισότιμη κατανομή των βαρών. Το επαναλαμβάνουμε αυτό διαρκώς αλλά δεν το βλέπουμε στην πράξη. Έχουμε μία καλή πρακτική - το EUREMA - στη Μάλτα· έχουμε δει ποια είναι τα κενά της διαδικασίας· ξέρουμε πώς μπορούμε να την βελτιώσουμε.

Κυρία Επίτροπε, είναι πολύ σημαντικό το φόρουμ που ανακοινώσατε αλλά σας παρακαλώ να μη διστάσετε να καταθέσετε τελικά την πρόταση για την εσωτερική επανεγκατάσταση στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Αφορά βεβαίως τον Νότο αλλά αφορά και τον Βορρά. Μην διστάζετε να το προτείνετε αυτό διότι πρέπει να τεθούμε όλοι προ των ευθυνών μας. Είναι μια υπόθεση που αφορά το μέλλον της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και προβλέπεται στο νέο δημοσιονομικό πλαίσιο. Είναι και στο δικό σας χέρι να προωθήσετε την πρόταση αυτή, η οποία είναι καθοριστική για όλους μας.


  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). - Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, EUREMA sí, pero es necesario un mecanismo de realojamiento permanente para beneficiarios de protección internacional en Europa. Las cifras hablan por sí solas y demuestran que la demanda no es idéntica. Entre septiembre y diciembre de 2012, la media de solicitudes de asilo por millón de habitantes fue de 205. En Malta, 1 040, en Chipre, 680 y en Suecia 1 490.

Sin embargo, no solo se deben tener en cuenta estos datos estadísticos sino también la capacidad de acogida. Por eso, hablamos, señor Presidente, de solidaridad compartida. Si, como parece ser, en este momento no es posible un sistema basado en cuotas anuales y obligatorias para todos los Estados, deberíamos, al menos, tener un sistema voluntario, una clave de reparto que fomente la generosidad y la solidaridad de los Estados para acoger a las personas que necesitan protección internacional.

Para un EUREMA II, solo 7 Estados miembros y 14 personas realojadas parece un dato decepcionante. Los fondos financieros —6 000 euros por persona— y la anunciada propuesta legislativa que hoy reclamamos deben ayudar a desarrollar políticas de reasentamiento intraeuropeo, fortaleciendo el área común de protección en su conjunto y garantizando su tramitación administrativa, así como los derechos humanos de los beneficiarios, el reparto conjunto de responsabilidades y las obligaciones internacionales contraídas.


  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario, non vi è dubbio che il progetto EUREMA seppure, come dire, apprezzabile sotto il profilo della generosità, non abbia conseguito per intero i risultati che tutti quanti ci attendevamo. È stato detto: 14 soggetti soltanto ricollocati e sette Stati membri che aderiscono a questo progetto è un'indicazione chiara che, evidentemente, ci attendevamo molto di più.

È tuttavia utile quanto poco prima riferito dal Commissario: un forum nazionale che possa essere uno strumento di consultazione e di proposte e, soprattutto, l'esigenza condivisa di fare della solidarietà una solidarietà vera, effettiva, autentica – fin qui, molto spesso, quella di taluni Stati membri è stata di facciata. Per garantire un programma serio e organico, tuttavia, è necessario disporre di adeguati finanziamenti e lo strumento c'è: c'è lo strumento previsto nelle prospettive finanziarie 2014-2020, c'è lo strumento previsto nell'apposito fondo per l'asilo e la migrazione, che tuttavia risulta al momento fortemente ridotto.

Occorre quindi lavorare seriamente ed alacremente perché le risorse siano adeguate, perché l'Unione europea si faccia carico di una questione che è certamente propria – soprattutto dell'Unione europea – con un'azione positiva, decisa, che faccia di questo strumento uno strumento concreto che possa raggiungere stavolta gli effetti sperati.


„Catch the eye” eljárás


  Franz Obermayr (NI). - Herr Präsident! Es liegt in der Natur der Sache, dass jene Mitgliedstaaten, die die Außengrenzen der EU bilden, besonders unter dem Zustrom von Asylanten leiden. Denn nach Dublin-II muss ein Asylantrag dort behandelt werden, wo die Einreise veranlasst oder nicht verhindert wurde.

Ich sehe ein, dass Länder wie Griechenland Probleme haben, mit diesem Verwaltungsaufwand fertig zu werden. Technische, finanzielle sowie personelle Hilfen zur Grenzsicherung, aber auch zur raschen Abwicklung von Asylverfahren sind daher sinnvoll. Nicht sinnvoll sind dagegen groß angelegte Umsiedlungen, schon gar nicht, wenn die Kriterien wie das BIP zum Beispiel hier herangezogen werden. Denn wohin das führt, ist doch wohl klar: Zu einer Fokussierung auf die sogenannten reichen Mitgliedstaaten als Gastländer für Asylanten.

Es wäre daher ein richtiger Ansatz, Transitländer wie Marokko, Tunesien oder auch die Türkei als sichere Drittländer in die Pflicht zu nehmen und Entwicklungshilfe oder wirtschaftliche Abkommen daran zu knüpfen, dass die Rückübernahmeabkommen auch eingehalten werden.


  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Din cauza poziţiei geografice, unele state sunt mai expuse valurilor de refugiaţi şi solicitanţilor de azil care apar în urma unor crize, iar, în ultimii ani, au existat mai multe situaţii de acest tip la graniţele Uniunii, începând de la revoluţiile din nordul Africii şi până la actuala criză din Siria. De aceea, solidaritatea în domeniu este foarte importantă. Un exemplu este criza libiană, când România a găzduit la Timişoara peste 200 de refugiaţi.

Cred şi eu că este nevoie de un instrument juridic pentru a preveni ca doar unele state membre să se confrunte cu un număr foarte mare de solicitanţi de azil. De aceea, vreau să încurajez Comisia să vină cu o propunere legislativă care să conţină şi indicatori statistici privind distribuţia solicitanţilor de azil în statele membre.


(„Catch the eye” eljárás vége)


  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, hopefully next session you will vote on the new asylum system. When we have that in place we will have achieved something historic. It will take some time before it works in all Member States but it will mean that all Member States will have the possibility of receiving asylum seekers in a fair, transparent and humane way.

Today, basically only ten countries in the European Union receive all the asylum seekers. Last year this was a bit more than 330 000 people. Of course, in the medium term this will mean that we can distribute the responsibility a little better in the European Union and that we can help more people. However, there will always be differences between the Member States. There will be differences because countries are located differently, geographically; there are histories in different Member States; there is the reputation issue; people go to where there are fellow countrymen; there are events in neighbourhoods which have an influence as well. Therefore we will always have to be prepared for some sort of solidarity mechanism or some sort of assistance.

There will be an evaluation mechanism in the new Dublin Regulation, hopefully evaluating and detecting where a Member State could face a lot of pressure if there are weaknesses in the system. We could identify that and mobilise a whole range of tools to alleviate the pressure. But again, there will always be some sort of mechanism.

I was very happy about the EUREMA scheme in Malta. We have helped Malta – if not as much as we would have liked, at least a little bit. I called for the second EUREMA conference. It was very difficult to get Member States to pledge places – very difficult – and as you saw, only 14 people have been relocated through that scheme.

When, as I told you, we discussed with the Ministers the possibility of setting up a scheme such as you are asking for – a legislative, permanent scheme – only a couple of Member States were in favour, but a vast majority were totally against. There is not the political climate today to make it possible to propose such a scheme. We could, of course, propose it, but there would be a robust ‘No’ and it would not happen; it would only be a paper tiger.

I think we could achieve the same goals by setting up this forum with the Commission, together with EASO and other experts, giving regular reports, convening the forum and identifying where the needs are the biggest, and hopefully Member States could pledge the places in order to help and show solidarity. We have set aside specific lump sums for that in order to provide also the economic possibilities for solidarity, and together with the experience, the know-how and the best practices which we have gained from EUREMA, I think this could be almost as good as a permanent legislative system. It is definitely, in the current political climate, the only way forward.


  Elnök. − A vitát lezárom. A szavazásra május 21-én, kedden kerül sor.

Írásbeli nyilatkozatok (149. cikk)


  Claudio Morganti (EFD), per iscritto. Sono passati più di due anni dalla prima, massiccia ondata di sbarchi di immigrati sulle coste italiane, in particolare a Lampedusa.

All'epoca l'Europa aveva miseramente girato le spalle all'Italia, lasciando che si sobbarcasse da sola questo enorme flusso di individui, impossibile da arrestare anche a causa delle discutibili norme internazionali in materia. I nostri amici europei non ci hanno pensato un attimo a chiudere le frontiere, a scapito della tanto sbandierata solidarietà e del comune sentire europeo. Il paradosso è che poi sono tutti pronti a criticare gli altri per come vengono gestite queste situazioni. Gli sbarchi a Lampedusa sono proseguiti a ritmo costante e continuano anche oggi: l'Italia è particolarmente vulnerabile, data la sua posizione geografica, e non può continuare ad essere lasciata sola a gestire quella che è una costante emergenza.

L'Unione europea deve muoversi in fretta per organizzare un sistema di responsabilità condivisa, in cui si può ritrovare forse quel vero valore aggiunto europeo, cui si richiama spesso anche questo Parlamento.

Aviso legal - Política de privacidade