The Czech Presidency of the EU Council continued its reflections on how to amend the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (AMMR) and how to take forward the solidarity mechanism provided for in this regulation in a paper dated 20 October.
While the EU home affairs ministers, meeting in Luxembourg on 10 October, mandated Prague to take this work forward (see EUROPE 13043/2, 13036/19), the Czech Presidency further clarifies, in this document seen by EUROPE, how this compulsory solidarity mechanism would work and also details its concept of ‘flexible responsibility’. It also pushes forward, again as a solidarity response, new amendments to the so-called ‘Dublin’ criteria (also covered by the AMMR) which lay down Member States’ responsibility in terms of processing asylum applications.
On compulsory solidarity, for the first time, it puts forward minimum annual figures for the relocation of migrants/asylum seekers, with Member States having the choice between 5,000 or 10,000 relocations per year for frontline countries. These relatively low figures are explained by the lack of success to date of even voluntary calls for relocation.
“Given the past and recent experiences with relocation exercises and limits in terms of logistical capacities, and thus feasibility in implementing relocation pledges, Member States are invited to consider what this minimum annual threshold could be: a) 5,000 relocations; b) 10,000 relocations”, the document says.
More broadly, the Presidency proposes a system of “three safeguards” to ensure “enough predictability, assurances as well as flexibility in terms of the solidarity mechanism”. In addition to a minimum annual threshold, which the Commission could itself revise upwards, Prague also proposes a “fair share” principle as a distribution key for calculating solidarity commitments and asks Member States whether this principle should be “guiding” or “mandatory”.
It also includes in this triptych the idea of additional solidarity for situations where there are not enough relocation pledges with offsets in the so-called ‘Dublin’ transfers.
“If the minimum annual threshold and/or the Commission recommendations in the Annual Report in terms of relocations are not fully followed by the Member States, the mechanism would allow for a topping-up of the remaining unfulfilled relocation pledges. This would include an option for Member States, under a particular pressure/crisis, to apply for a corresponding reduction of the Dublin cases under the Dublin rules that they would be otherwise responsible for. This would shift the responsibility to Member States providing solidarity”, writes the Czech Presidency.
A system of guarantees should in any case be considered in order to avoid, as far as possible, a negative effect on secondary movements within the EU and the pull factor. It will also be necessary to preserve the provisions on family reunification and not to hinder transfers linked to these family reasons.
On flexible responsibility, the Presidency again suggests extending the scope of the derogations to the right of asylum defined in the draft regulation on the instrumentalisation of migrants as well as the easing of reception conditions for asylum seekers and procedural deadlines, for example, to the asylum procedure at the border, covered by the draft regulation on asylum procedures. Again, there would be additional flexibilities on processing times or a lowering of the percentage threshold for nationalities subject to this procedure at the border (this would further accelerate the processing of asylum applications considered unfounded).
Finally, the document also opens up discussions on new amendments to the so-called ‘Dublin’ criteria.
Member States are invited to reflect on a cessation of responsibility of a country “one year after entry in the case of persons disembarked following a rescue operation at sea and 5 years for other categories”. “The obligation to take back international protection beneficiaries and resettled persons should cease after 3 years in accordance with the long-term residence status acquired after legal and continuous residence”, Prague further suggests.
The reasoning of the decision whether or not the Member State concerned is responsible should be extended, the document adds.
Link to the note: https://aeur.eu/f/3s2 (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)