Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.6.2-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"When it came to Mr Marinho’s report on rules for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, we Swedish Social Democrats voted against Amendment No 13 and abstained from voting where Amendments Nos 14, 15 and 24 were concerned.
Amendment No 13 from the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party proposes that asylum seekers should have their applications examined in those countries in which their family members have already sought asylum or been granted residence permits. We wish to state that we advocate family reunification and believe that asylum seekers from the same family should be allowed to come to the same Member State.
However, to extend this principle – as in Amendment No 13, as we understand it – to include family members who are already in the country for other reasons could have far-reaching consequences, for it could cover all kinds of lawful reasons for having been granted a residence permit, for example in connection with studying. Such a system would also militate against harmonisation of the ways in which refugees are received.
Contrary to the proposals by the Commission and by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, Amendments Nos 14, 15 and 24 propose that appeals against decisions concerning which country should examine an asylum application should have a suspensive effect on the transfer of refugees from one Member State to another. We believe that a suspensive effect is only acceptable in special cases. We therefore abstained from voting where these amendments were concerned."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples