Member States are still divided over the need to set annual targets for the relocation of asylum seekers (including migrants to be returned to their countries) and financial support, according to a note from the Swedish Presidency of the EU Council dated 21 March, referring to the latest compromises on the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (AMMR, ex-Dublin) (see EUROPE 13128/10, 13147/10). Nor do they yet have the same vision of a situation of migratory pressure that would justify the activation of the ‘solidarity reserve’ and the deployment of these two types of aid.
In this note, Italy argues that “the best option would be identifying the annual numbers for relocation on the basis of objective criteria (total number of arrivals, average recognition rates as well as average return rates). The solution of a set threshold would be a second best option, if it is put in relation and balanced with other relevant elements of the whole system, i.e. the adequate capacity concept in the border procedure and the responsibility offsets”.
On the possibility of setting numerical thresholds, the French government indicates that it “could lift its substantive reservation on the inclusion of numerical thresholds for solidarity measures in the AMMR only if a numerical threshold is also provided for in the APR (asylum procedure) regulation to set the adequate capacity for processing, at European level, applications in border procedures”.
It is “essential that the thresholds provided for in the AMMR be able to evolve in line with migration flows and needs. France is opposed to the fact that these thresholds can only be lowered in exceptional cases”.
Paris is also opposed to the possibility of relocating people in an irregular situation and wants to focus only on vulnerable people in need of protection.
While Italy or Greece ask their partners to take into account “the geographical location of a country or the way of arrival of migrants and the risk of such arrivals in order to assess whether or not a Member State is under pressure”, Vienna opposes this.
The Austrian government wants to be able to help the so-called countries under pressure only “for those Member States that have a functioning asylum system with sufficient resources. A precondition for the functioning of the solidarity mechanism is that all Member States fully implement the asylum acquis in law and in practice, for example through the execution of the so-called Dublin transfers”.
Some delegations, such as Poland and Hungary, also continue to oppose specific treatment of persons disembarked after rescue operations at sea.
Asylum procedures
Member States’ responses to the latest compromises on the Asylum Procedures Regulation have also been compiled in a note dated 29 March.
While the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties decided on 28 March that the new border procedure could remain optional for Member States (see EUROPE 13151/6), Austria stresses “the importance of mandatory border procedures for the functioning of the future” common European asylum system.
Mandatory border procedures “should therefore be standard procedures and be implemented in all Member States. Derogations from the mandatory border procedure should only be provided as a last resort”.
The Med5 countries (Greece, Malta, Spain, Italy - comments from Cyprus are not indicated) maintain their reservations on the scope, location and timing of this border procedure. And, in general, “we reiterate our position that there should be flexibility in the application of border procedures, which should be adapted to the circumstances of the Member States, including situations of mass influx on the national territory”, writes Greece.
Links to notes: https://aeur.eu/f/65o ; https://aeur.eu/f/65y (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)