Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-121"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-03-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:VOTE2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010313.11.2-121"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-03-13-Speech-2-1222
lpv:speaker	lp:Gérard Caudron2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Parti socialiste (1999-07-20--2002-07-09)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; PES (1999-07-20--2002-01-16)3 substitute; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3
lpv:translated text	". A first text was presented to the European Parliament in September 2000, on the initiative of the French Presidency. This proposal was designed to prevent the tragedies that result from the actions of unscrupulous carriers who are prepared to exploit human distress and misery. I welcome it. Indeed, I think it is high time we tackled this problem head-on, to avoid any repetition of the tragedies of Dover and Saint Raphaël. The aim of this directive is to supplement Article 26 of the Schengen Convention and to define its implementing conditions. This French initiative defines the obligations of carriers who bring foreigners whose application for asylum has been rejected into the Union. It proposes harmonising the penalties, which currently differ widely from one country to another, imposed on carriers who have not respected their obligation to carry out checks. I must admit that I am disappointed by the Swedish Presidency’s text, which steps back from the original text drawn up at the initiative of France. It is confined to improving the situation in only a very limited way within the actual scope of Article 26 of the Schengen Agreement, although, pursuant to the Protocol integrating the Schengen into the framework of the European Union, a far more significant step forward could have been taken. This lack of ambition is apparent when we consider the scope of the text. It does not apply to international rail traffic and it does not precisely define the obligations and financial penalties, which consist of a deterrent penalty of not less than EUR 2 000 per person. Furthermore, the exemptions from the penalties are not acceptable. For instance, the text provides that the carrier is not liable for any penalty if the third-country national seeks asylum immediately after arriving in the territory of the State of destination, even if the application is subsequently turned down. It should surely be up to the State and not the carrier to check the asylum seeker's eligibility. In the same context, the carrier is exempted from the penalties if the person carried is granted refugee status or leave to remain under a subsidiary form of protection. While I entirely endorse the initiative and the approach of the French Presidency, I found some of the amendments made to the proposed text unacceptable. I therefore rejected them."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"acquis"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph