Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-20-Speech-1-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100920.18.1-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, honourable Members, Pakistan has indeed been very much in the limelight in the last month and, of course, we all deplored the horrible loss of life and the many displaced persons. As you know, both the Commission and the Council are very much engaged in trying to alleviate the situation by finding ways to increase trade, as well as ways of rebuilding the country and helping it to prevent further disasters. This was also discussed at the Council meeting last week.
Turning to agreements with countries not signatories of the Geneva Convention, we would, of course, like Pakistan to sign this, and we are heavily involved in trying to convince them and in trying to pursue these negotiations, because the Commission is — as are you all — very attached to the values of international instruments on human rights and international protection, and a proper application of those instruments must be at the core of EU policy.
For this reason, we have developed the European Union acquis on international protection – the Qualification and Asylum Procedures Directives – which also includes human rights safeguards in its return policy, namely, the Returns Directive. In addition, all Member States of the European Union are bound by the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights.
These standards guarantee that no person may be removed from any Member State, or subjected to readmission procedures, before the risk that, once returned, that person may be subject to persecution, or torture, or inhumane or degrading punishment, has been fully evaluated and excluded.
In particular, the EU’s asylum instrument requires that Member States assess each application for asylum individually, guaranteeing that the applicant remain on the territory until the authorities have taken a decision on the said application, and then they must provide for an effective remedy before a court or a tribunal.
These standards are vital for the respect of the non-refoulement principle and are, by no means, limited by any readmission agreement, which is a very, very important point.
All EU readmission agreements contain the non-affection clause explicitly requiring that these standards be respected. We should also not forget that these readmission agreements can play an important role in undermining the activities of migrant-smuggling networks. A report earlier this year from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, assessing criminal assisted migration from Pakistan, estimated that the annual revenue of this so-called industry amounted to 1.25 billion dollars. The report recommended
that Pakistan initiate operation and cooperation agreements with key partners, including general agreements for mutual legal assistance and extradition.
With regard to visa facilitation agreements, no list of prerequisite criteria for deciding to open such negotiations exists, but the European Union takes into account the conclusion of, or active negotiations on, readmission agreements, external relations objectives, implementation records of existing bilateral agreements and progress on related areas in the field of justice and home affairs – including fundamental rights.
It should be noted that, for all countries with which the EU has concluded visa facilitation agreements, the Commission has presented a draft negotiating mandate to the Council as a follow-up to Council conclusions which envisage the promotion of people-to-people contact with the country concerned.
Readmission agreements are monitored by the Joint Readmission Committees. These are set up under each agreement. Furthermore, we gather any relevant information about the implementation of the agreements in force. So far, no major problems have been reported, not even by NGOs who are active in these fields, despite the fact that some of the countries where such agreements are fully operational have been very sensitive.
In any case, under a readmission agreement, no one shall be returned if this would entail the risk that the person concerned would be subject to persecution, torture or inhumane or degrading punishment.
Turning to today’s item, I want to thank the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and the rapporteur, Mr Sógor, for their very constructive work on this, and for the support given to the Commission when your adopted your opinion in July.
Should that happen, this is not a consequence of the readmission agreement, but of an illegal decision taken by the Member State concerned, which should be subject to judicial review by the national courts. Furthermore, as requested by the European Council in the Stockholm Programme, the Commission will, by the end of this year, present a full evaluation of the EU readmission agreements in the form of a communication to Parliament and the Council. The Commission will consider, in the framework of the abovementioned evaluation, your suggestion that the possibility of assistance with reintegration for those readmitted be explicitly mentioned. In any case, we are already providing support for different projects and the return fund offers possibilities for immediate reception in the country of return upon arrival.
There are ways to support this: we will undertake evaluations; we have directives in place. The Commission will monitor the situation very closely and I will keep you informed as much as possible, as stated in the general agreement between us and also in the communication adopted by the LIBE Committee in July. With this, I hope that you can adopt the agreement.
The readmission agreement has been, for many years now, an important tool in managing migration flows, and the Lisbon Treaty explicitly mentions readmission agreements.
If we want migration and asylum policy to be credible to European citizens, it must be based on the principle that those who do not have a legal right to remain in the territory are returned. This is where readmission agreements come in. They facilitate the return of persons staying irregularly in the country of origin or transit and they are agreements between administrations stipulating the procedures to be followed.
Over the course of time, admission agreements have also become linked to visa policy. In a series of readmission agreements, they have become an indispensable element when negotiating a visa facilitation agreement.
The Commission is committed to pursuing these negotiations under current or future mandates.
Let me address a few of the concerns raised by speakers in the form of oral questions. The Commission is committed to giving full effect to its obligation under Article 218 in the treaty to immediately and fully inform Parliament at all stages of the negotiations and of the conclusion of EU readmission agreements. We will implement these obligations, taking full account of Parliament’s role in the adoption procedure, namely, the requirement that it give its consent to the conclusion of future readmission agreements.
We will provide all the necessary information, subject to measures ensuring confidentiality in the case of ongoing negotiations, and in accordance with precise arrangements within the future framework of relations between Parliament and the Commission.
In the meantime, the Director-General, Mr Manservici, has already given you
with the LIBE Committee on 12 July, the first general update on the ongoing negotiations. Mrs Griesbeck also mentioned the declaration made by the Commission and, of course, we will follow that very closely and report to you accordingly. We should also explore together how to further optimise this cooperation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples