(26) In addition, in order to decide which specific Member State should be the Member State of relocation, specific account should be given to the preferences and specific qualifications of the applicants concerned which could facilitate their integration into the Member State of relocation, such as their language skills, family ties beyond the definition of family members in Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, social relations, cultural ties, previous stay in a Member State, previous study and previous work experience with a company or an organisation of a specific Member State as well as specific qual ...[+++]ifications that could be relevant for the integration of applicants into the labour market of the Member State of relocation.

20. Welcomes the progress which has been made in asylum legislation and calls on Member States to make the necessary legislative and administrative reforms to effectively implement such provisions; recalls, however, that EU asylum policies must treat unaccompanied minors as children first and urges Member States, therefore, as far as possible to exempt unaccompanied minors from accelerated procedures and from procedures at the border; recalls also that the Member State responsible for an asylum application made in more than one Member State by an unaccompanied minor, with no member of his/her family legally present in the territory of ...[+++]the Member States, is the State in which the minor is present after having lodged an application there and calls on Member States to follow European Court of Justice rulings; stresses that it is crucial, given the specific needs of unaccompanied minors, that their asylum applications be given priority so that a fair decision can be taken as quickly as possible; calls on Member States to develop their asylum systems with a view to establishing a harmonised and child-sensitive institutional framework that takes into consideration the special needs and diverse difficulties of unaccompanied minors, especially victims of human trafficking;

The question is as follows: With respect to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act: (a) how was this Bill developed; (b) did the government request any specific studies for this Bill and, if so, (i) what was the subject of these studies, (ii) what conclusions did they reach, (iii) what recommendations did they put forward, (iv) what methodology was followed in the studies, (v) on what date were the studies requested, (vi) on what date were the studies submitted, (vii) do the studies contain quantitative analyses (are they supported by data), (viii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (c) did the government request an analysis of the Bill’s economic impact on creators’ income and, if so, (i) what op ...[+++]tions did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is ...

Moreover, the Court considers that the objective envisaged to prevent a taxpayer eluding payment of the tax on increased value due in France may be attained by measures that are less coercive or less restrictive of the freedom of establishment, and which relate specifically to the risk of such a temporary transfer, for example by taxing a taxpayer who, after a short stay abroad, returns to France once his increased values have been realised.

With regard to already submitted proposals in this context aiming at creating a general legal framework for conditions for entry and residence of third-country nationals in the territory of EU Member States, the objective of this new proposal is more limited, insofar as it will regulate some specific cases - studies, vocational training and voluntary sector - which are not covered by the above-mentioned proposals.

So there is no distinction between.as Judy, I think, is trying to get at.that there is a real distinction between a protected person who has some sort of permanency as a refugee and someone who is going to be here for a short period of time on a temporary worker permit, a student permit that in fact has not dealt with permanency.