This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
|dossier||COM(2016)465 - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).|
|date||July 13, 2016|
(1) A number of substantiv e changes E/ amendments nS are to be made to Council
Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers21 E> Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council nS . I n the inte rests of clarity, that Directive should be recast.
| * 2013/33/EU recital 2 (adapted) |
(2) A common policy on asylum, including a Common European Asylum System,
E/ (CEAS), which is based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967, <3 is a constituent part of the European
Union’s objective of progressively establishing an area of freedom, security and
justice open to those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek protection in the Union E/ , thus affirming the principle of non ~refou I ement nS . Such a policy should
19 20 21 22
OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.
Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2013 laying down
be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States.
(3) The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is based on a system for determining
the Member State responsible for applicants for international protection and common standards for asylum procedures, reception conditions and procedures and rights of beneficiaries of international protection. Notwithstanding the significant progress that has been made in the development of the CEAS, there are still notable differences between the Member States with regard to the types of procedures used, the reception conditions provided to applicants, the recognition rates and the type of protection granted to beneficiaries of international protection. These divergences are important drivers of secondary movement and undermine the objective of ensuring that all applicants are equally treated wherever they apply in the Union.
|*2013/33/EU recital 3 (adapted) |
(3) At its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, the European Council
agreed to work towards establishing a Common European Asylum System, based on
the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention Relating to th e Status of
Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January
1967 (‘the Geneva Convention’), thus affirming the principle of non refoulement.
The first phase of a Common European Asylum System was achieved through the
adoption of relevant legal in str um ents, including Directive 2003/9/EC, provided for in the Treaties.
| ^ 2013/33/EU recital 4 (adapted) | (4) The European Council, at its m eeting of 4 November 2004, adopted The Hague
Programme, wwwwww set the objectives to be implem ented in the area of freedom,
security and justice in th e period 2005 2010. In thi s respect, The Hague Programme invited the European Commission to conclude the evaluation of the first-phase
instruments and to submit the second phase instruments and measures to th e
European Parliament and to the Coun ci l.
| * 2013/33/EU recital 5 (adapted) |
(5) The European Council, at its m eeting of 10 11 December 2009, adopted the Stockholm Programme, wwwwww reiterated the commmmmment to th e objective of
establishing by 2012 a common ar ea of protection and solidarity based on a common
asylum procedure and a uniform status for those granted inter n ation al protection
based on high protection standards and fair and effective procedures. The Stockhol m
Programme further provides that it is crucial that individuals, regardless of the Member State in which their application for international protection is made, are offered an equivalent level of treatment as regar d s re cep ti on c onditions.
(4) In its Communication of 6 April 2016 entitled 'Towards a reform of the Common
European Asylum System and enhancing legal avenues to Europe',23 the Commission underlined the need for strengthening and harmonising further the CEAS. It also set out options for improving the CEAS, namely to establish a sustainable and fair system for determining the Member State responsible for applicants for international protection, to reinforce the Eurodac system, to achieve greater convergence in the Union asylum system, to prevent secondary movements within the Union and a new mandate for the European Union Agency for Asylum. This answers to calls by the European Council on 18-19 February 201624 and on 17-18 March 201625 to make progress towards reforming the Union's existing framework so as to ensure a humane and efficient asylum policy. It also proposes a way forward in line with the holistic approach to migration set out by the European Parliament in its own initiative report of 12 April 2016.
(5) Reception conditions continue to vary considerably between Member States both in
terms of how the reception system is organised and in terms of the standards provided to applicants. The persistent problems in ensuring adherence to the reception standards required for a dignified treatment of applicants in some Member States has contributed to a disproportionate burden falling on a few Member States with generally high reception standards which are then under pressure to reduce their standards. More equal reception standards set at an appropriate level across all Member States will contribute to a more dignified treatment and fairer distribution of applicants across the EU.
23 24 25
* 2013/33/EU recital 6 (adapted)
(6) The resources of the European Refugee \E> Asylum, Migration and Integration O
Fund and of the European \E> Union Agency for <3 Asylum Support Of fi ce shoul d be
mobilised to provide adequate support to Member States’ efforts in implementing the
standards set in the second phase of the Common European Asylum System \E> this Directive O , in particular \S> including O to those Member States which are faced with specific and disproportionate pressures on their asylum systems, due in particular to their geographical or demographic situation.
^ 2013/33/EU recital 7 (adapted)
(7) In the light of the results of the evaluations undertaken of the implementation of the
first-phase instruments, it is appropriate, at this stage, to confirm the principles underlying Directive 2003/9/EC with a view to ensuring improved reception conditions for applicants for international protection (‘applicants’).
COM(2016) 197 final. EUCO 19.02.2016, SN 1/16.
*2013/33/EU recital 8 ^ new
(7) In order to ensure equal treatment of applicants throughout the Union, this Directive
should apply during all stages and types of procedures concerning applications for international protection, in all locations and facilities hosting applicants and for as long as they are allowed to remain on the territory of the Member States as applicants. *-$ It is necessary to clarify that material reception conditions should be made available to applicants as from the moment when the person expresses his or her wish to apply for international protection to officials of the determining authority, as well as any officials of other authorities which are designated as competent to receive and register applications or which assist the determining authority to receive such applications in line with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Procedures Regulation].^
(8) Where an applicant is present in another Member State from the one in which he or
she is required to be present in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Dublin Regulation], the applicant should not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 17.
^ 2013/33/EU recital 10
(9) With respect to the treatment of persons falling within the scope of this Directive,
Member States are bound by obligations under instruments of international law to which they are party.
*2013/33/EU recitals 11 and 12 (adapted)
(10) E/ Standard conditions nS Standards for the reception of applicants that will suffice
to ensure them a dignified standard of living and comparable living conditions in all Member States should be laid down. The harmonisation of conditions for the reception of applicants should help to limit the secondary movements of applicants influenced by the variety of conditions for their reception.
(11) In order to ensure that applicants are aware of the consequences of absconding,
Member States should inform applicants in a uniform manner, as soon as possible and at the latest when they lodge their application, of all the obligations with which applicants must comply relating to reception conditions, including the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted and of any benefits.
*2013/33/EU recital 13 (adapted)
(13) With a view to ensuring equal treatment amongst all applicants for international
protection and guaranteeing consistency with current EU asylum acquis, in particular with Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (26 ), it is appropriate to extend the scope of this Directive in order to include applicants for subsidiary protection.
(12) Harmonised EU rules on the documents to be issued to applicants make it more difficult for applicants to move in an unauthorised manner within the Union. It needs to be clarified that Member States should only provide applicants with a travel document when serious humanitarian or other imperative reasons arise. The validity of travel documents should also be limited to the purpose and duration needed for the reason for which they are issued. Serious humanitarian reasons could for instance be considered when an applicant needs to travel to another State for medical treatment or to visit relatives in particular cases, such as for visits to close relatives who are seriously ill, or to attend marriages or funerals of close relatives. Other imperative reasons could include situations where applicants who have been granted access to the labour market are required to perform essential travel for work purposes, where applicants are required to travel as part of study curricula or where minors are travelling with foster families.
(13) Applicants do not have the right to choose the Member State of application. An applicant must apply for international protection in the Member State either of first entry or, in case of legal presence, in the Member State of legal stay or residence. An applicant who has not complied with this obligation is less likely, following a determination of the Member State responsible under Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Dublin Regulation], to be allowed to stay in the Member State where the application was made and consequently more likely to abscond. His or her whereabouts should therefore be closely monitored.
(14) Applicants are required to be present in the Member State where they made an application or in the Member State to which they are transferred in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Dublin Regulation]. In case an applicant has absconded from this Member State and, without authorisation, travelled to another Member State, it is vital, for the purpose of ensuring a well-functioning Common European Asylum System that the applicant is swiftly returned to the Member State where he or she is required to be present. Until such a transfer has taken place, there is
a risk that the applicant may abscond and his or her whereabouts should therefore be closely monitored.
(15) The fact that an applicant has previously absconded to another Member State is an
important factor when assessing the risk that the applicant may abscond. To ensure that the applicant does not abscond again and remains available to the competent authorities, once the applicant has been sent back to the Member State where he or she is required to be present, his or her whereabouts should therefore be closely monitored.
(16) For reasons of public interest or public order, for the swift processing and effective
monitoring of his or her application for international protection, for the swift processing and effective monitoring of his or her procedure for determining the Member State responsible in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Dublin Regulation] or in order to effectively prevent the applicant from absconding, Member States should, where necessary, assign the applicant residence in a specific place, such as an accommodation centre, a private house, flat, hotel or other premises adapted for housing applicants. Such a decision may be necessary to effectively prevent the applicant from absconding in particular in cases where the applicant has not complied with the obligations to: make an application in the Member State of first irregular or legal entry; to remain in the Member State where he or she is required to be present; or in cases where the applicant has been sent back to the Member State where he or she is required to be present after having absconded to another Member State. In case the applicant is entitled to material reception conditions, such material reception conditions should also be provided subject to the applicant residing in this specific place.
(17) Where there are reasons for considering that there is a risk that an applicant may abscond, Member States should require applicants to report to the competent authorities as frequently as necessary in order to monitor that the applicant does not abscond. To deter applicants from further absconding, Member States should also be able to grant material reception conditions, where the applicant is entitled to such material reception conditions, only in kind.
(18) All decisions restricting an applicant's freedom of movement need to be based on the individual behaviour and particular situation of the person concerned, taking into account any special reception needs of applicants and the principle of proportionality. Applicants must be duly informed of such decisions and of the consequences of non-compliance.
(19) In view of the serious consequences for applicants who have absconded or who are considered to be at risk of absconding, the meaning of absconding should be defined in view of encompassing both a deliberate action to avoid the applicable asylum procedures and the factual circumstance of not remaining available to the relevant authorities, including by leaving the territory where the applicant is required to be present.
*2013/33/EU recital 15
(20) The detention of applicants should be applied in accordance with the underlying
principle that a person should not be held in detention for the sole reason that he or she is seeking international protection, particularly in accordance with the international legal obligations of the Member States and with Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. Applicants may be detained only under E) the \E1 very clearly defined exceptional circumstances laid down in this Directive and subject to the principle of necessity and proportionality with regard to both to the manner and the purpose of such detention. ^ Detention of applicants pursuant to this Directive should only be ordered in writing by judicial or administrative authorities stating the reasons on which it is based, including in the cases where the person is already detained when making the application for international protection.^ Where an applicant is held in detention he or she should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial remedy before a national judicial authority.
(21) Where an applicant has been assigned a specific place of residence but has not
complied with this obligation, there needs to be a demonstrated risk that the applicant may abscond in order for the applicant to be detained. In all circumstances, special care must be taken to ensure that the length of the detention is proportionate and that it ends as soon as the obligation put on the applicant has been fulfilled or there are no longer reasons for believing that he or she will not fulfil this obligation. The applicant must also have been made aware of the obligation in question and of the consequences of non-compliance.
|*2013/33/EU recital 16______________|
(22) With regard to administrative procedures relating to the grounds for detention, the
notion of ‘due diligence’ at least requires that Member States take concrete and
meaningful steps to ensure that the time needed to verify the grounds for detenti on is as short as possible, and that there is a real prospect that such verification can be carried out successfully in the shortest possible time. Detention shall not exceed the time reasonably needed to complete the relevant procedures.
|*2013/33/EU recital 17______________|
(23) The grounds for detention set out in this Directive are without prejudice to other
grounds for detention, including detention grounds within the framework of criminal proceedings, which are applicable under national law, unrelated to the third country
national’s or stateless person’s application for international protection.
*2013/33/EU recital 18 ^ new
(24) Applicants who are in detention should be treated with full respect for human dignity
and their reception should be specifically designed to meet their needs in that situation. In particular, Member States should ensure that ^ Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and ^ Article 37 of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is applied.
|*2013/33/EU recital 19______________|
(25) There may be cases where it is not possible in practice to immediately ensure certain
reception guarantees in detention, for example due to the geographical location or the specific structure of the detention facility. However, any derogation from those guarantees should be temporary and should only be applied under the circumstances set out in this Directive. Derogations should only be applied in exceptional circumstances and should be duly justified, taking into consideration the circumstances of each case, including the level of severity of the derogation applied, its duration and its impact on the applicant concerned.
| * 2013/33/EU recital 20______________|
(26) In order to better ensure the physical and psychological integrity of the applicants,
detention should be a measure of last resort and may only be applied after all noncustodial alternative measures to detention have been duly examined. Any alternative measure to detention must respect the fundamental human rights of applicants.
^ 2013/33/EU recital 21
(27) In order to ensure compliance with the procedural guarantees consisting in the
opportunity to contact organisations or groups of persons that provide legal assistance, information should be provided on such organisations and groups of persons.
| *2013/33/EU recital 22______________|
(28) When deciding on housing arrangements, Member States should take due account of
the best interests of the child, as well as of the particular circumstances of any applicant who is dependent on family members or other close relatives such as unmarried minor siblings already present in the Member State.
|^ 2013/33/EU recital 14_____________|
(29) The reception of persons with special reception needs should be a primary concern for
national authorities in order to ensure that such reception is specifically designed to m eet their special reception needs.
^ 2013/33/EU recital 9 ^ new
(30) In applying this Directive, Member States should seek to ensure full compliance with
the principles of the best interests of the child and of family unity, in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Conventi on for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms respectively. ^ Reception conditions need to be adapted to the specific situation of minors, whether unaccompanied or within families, with due regard to their security, physical and emotional care and provided in a m anner that enc ou ra ges the ir general development. ^
(31) Member States should ensure that applicants receive the necessary health care which
should include, at least, emergency care and essential treatment of illnesses, including of serious mental disorders. To respond to public health concerns with regard to disease prevention and safeguard the health of individual applicants, applicants' access to health care should also include preventive medical treatment, such as vaccinations. Member States may require medical screening for applicants on public health grounds. The results of medical screening should not influence the assessment of applications for international protection, which should always be carried out objectively, impartially and on an individual basis in line with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Procedures Regulation].
(32) An applicant's entitlement to material reception conditions under this Directive may be
curtailed in certain circumstances such as where an applicant has absconded to another Member State from the Member State where he or she is required to be present. However, Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and a dignified standard of living for applicants in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, in particular by providing for the applicant's subsistence and basic needs both in terms of physical safety and dignity and in terms of interpersonal relationships, with due regard to the inherent vulnerabilities of the person as applicant for international protection and that of his or her family or caretaker. Due regard must also be given to applicants with special reception needs. The specific needs of children, in particular with regard to respect for the child's right to education and access to healthcare have to be taken into account. When a minor is in a Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present, Member States should provide the minor with access to suitable educational activities pending the transfer to the Member State
responsible. The specific needs of women applicants who have experienced gender-based harm should be taken into account, including via ensuring access, at different stages of the asylum procedure, to medical care, legal support, and to appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care.
(33) The scope of the definition of family member should reflect the reality of current
migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member States.
*2013/33/EU recital 23 ^ new
(34) In order to promote the self-sufficiency of applicants and to limit wide discrepancies
between Member States, it is essential to provide clear rules on the applicants’ access
to the labour market ^ and to ensure that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment. Labour market tests used to give priority to nationals or to other Union citizens or to third-country nationals legally resident in the Member State concerned should not hinder effective access for applicants to the labour market and should be implemented without prejudice to the principle of preference for Union citizens as expressed in the relevant provisions of the applicable Acts of Accession ^.
(35) The maximum time frame for access to the labour market should be aligned with the duration of the examination procedure on the merits. In order to increase integration prospects and self-sufficiency of applicants, earlier access to the labour market is encouraged where the application is likely to be well-founded, including when its examination has been prioritised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Procedures Regulation]. Member States should therefore consider reducing that time period as much as possible with a view to ensuring that applicants have access to the labour market no later than 3 months from the date when the application was lodged in cases where the application is likely to be well-founded. Member States should however not grant access to the labour market to applicants whose application for international protection is likely to be unfounded and for which an accelerated examination procedure is applied.
(36) Once applicants are granted access to the labour market, they should be entitled to a common set of rights based on equal treatment with nationals. Working conditions should cover at least pay and dismissal, health and safety requirements at the workplace, working time and leave, taking into account collective agreements in force. Applicants should also enjoy equal treatment as regards freedom of association and affiliation, education and vocational training, the recognition of professional qualifications and social security.
(37) A Member State should recognise professional qualifications acquired by an applicant
in another Member State in the same way as those of citizens of the Union and should take into account qualifications acquired in a third country in accordance with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.27 Special measures also need to be considered with a view to effectively addressing the practical difficulties encountered by applicants concerning the authentication of their foreign diploma, certificates or other evidence of formal qualifications, in particular due to the lack of documentary evidence and their inability to meet the costs related to the recognition procedures.
(38) The definition of branches of social security used in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004
the European Parliament and of the Council28 should apply.
(39) Due to the possibly temporary nature of the stay of applicants and without prejudice to
Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Member States should be able to exclude family benefits and unemployment benefits from equal treatment between applicants and their own nationals and should be able to limit the application of equal treatment in relation to education and vocational training. The right to freedom of association and affiliation may also be limited by excluding applicants from taking part in the management of certain bodies and from holding a public office.
(40) Union law does not limit the power of the Member States to organise their social
security schemes. In the absence of harmonisation at Union level, it is for each Member State to lay down the conditions under which social security benefits are granted, as well as the amount of such benefits and the period for which they are granted. However, when exercising that power, Member States should comply with Union law.
* 2013/33/EU recital 24
(41) To ensure that the material ^ reception conditions ^ support provided to applicants
com plies E/ comply nS with the principles set out in this Directive, it is necessary ^ to further clarify the nature of those conditions, including not only housing, food and clothing but also essential non-food items such as sanitary items. It is also necessary ^ that Member States determine the level of ^ material reception conditions provided in the form of financial allowances or vouchers ^ such support on the basis of relevant references O to ensure adequate standards of living for nationals, such as minimum income benefits, minimum wages, minimum pensions,
Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the
recognition of professional qualifications (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22).
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the
unemployment benefits and social assistance benefits ^. That does not mean that the amount granted should be the same as for nationals. Member States may grant less favourable treatment to applicants than to nationals as specified in this Directive.
^ 2013/33/EU recital 25
(42) ^ In order to restrict the possibility of abuse of the reception system, Member States
should be able to provide material reception conditions only to the extent applicants do not have sufficient means to provide for themselves. When assessing the resources of an applicant and requiring an applicant to cover or contribute to the material reception conditions, Mem ber States should observe the principle of proportionality and take into account the individual circumstances of the applicant and the need to respect his or her dignity or personal integrity, including the applicants special reception needs. Applicants should not be required to cover or contribute to the costs of their necessary health care. ^ The possibility of abuse of the reception system should E/ also nS be restricted by specifying the circumstances in which material reception conditions for appl icants O accommodation, food, clothing and other essential non-food items provided in the form of financial allowances or vouchers may be replaced with reception conditions provided in kind and the circumstances in which the daily allowance ^ may be reduced or withdrawn while at the same time ensuring a dignified standard of living for all applicants.
*2013/33/EU recital 26 ^ new
(43) ^ Member States should put in place appropriate guidance, monitoring and control of
their reception conditions. In order to ensure comparable living conditions, Member States should be required to take into account, in their monitoring and control systems, operational standards on reception conditions and specific indicators developed by [the European Asylum Support Office / the European Union Agency for Asylum]. <=■ The efficiency of national reception systems and cooperation among Member States in the field of reception of applicants should be secured ^, including through the Union network on reception authorities, which has been established by [the European Asylum Support Office / the European Union Agency for Asylum]^.
^ 2013/33/EU recital 27
(44) Appropriate coordination should be encouraged between the competent authorities as
regards the reception of applicants, and harmonious relationships between local communities and accommodation centres should therefore be promoted.
(45) Experience shows that contingency planning is needed to ensure adequate reception of
applicants in cases where Member States are confronted with a disproportionate number of applicants for international protection. Whether the measures envisaged in Member States' contingency plans are adequate should be regularly monitored and assessed.
I * 2013/33/EU recital 28______________I
(46) Member States should have the power to introduce or maintain more favourable
provisions for third-country nationals and stateless persons who ask for international protection from a Member State.
^ 2013/33/EU recital 29 (adapted)
(47) In this spirit, Member States are also invited to apply the provisions of this Directive
in connection with procedures for deciding on applications for forms of protection other than that provided for under Directive 2011/95/EU Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Qualification Regulation].
* 2013/33/EU recital 30 ^ new
(48) The implementation of this Directive should be evaluated at regular intervals.
*-$ Member States should provide the Commission with the necessary information in order for the Commission to be able to fulfil its reporting obligations. ^
^ 2013/33/EU recital 31 (adapted)
(49) Since the objective of this Directive, namely to establish standards for the reception
E/ conditions nS of applicants in Member States, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of this Directive, be better achieved at the Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
|^ 2013/33/EU recital 32_____________I
(50) In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of Member States and the
Commission on explanatory documents of 28 September 201129, Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified.
^ 2013/33/EU recital 33 (adapted)
(33) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the
position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the TEU, and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, the United Kingdom and Ireland are not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its application.
(51) [In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those Member States have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive]
(51) [In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its application.]
(51) [In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, the United Kingdom is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
(52) In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom
and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Ireland has notified (, by letter of ...,) its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive.]
(51) [In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom has notified (, by letter of ...,) its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive.
(52) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.]
*2013/33/EU recital 34
(52) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark,
annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
|*2013/33/EU recital 35_____________I
(53) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised
in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Directive seeks to ensure full respect for human dignity and to promote the application of Articles 1, 4, 6, 7, 18, 21, 24 and 47 of the Charter and has to be implemented accordingly.
*2013/33/EU recital 36 (adapted)
(54) The obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those
provisions which represent a substanti ve change E/ amendment nS as compared wi th
E/ to the earlier nS Directive 2003/9/EC. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under that E/ the earlier nS Directive.
*2013/33/EU recital 37
(55) This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States
relating to the time-limit for E/ the nS transposition into national law of E/ the nS Directive 2013/33/EU set out in Annex III, Part B.