am com legreport · 2 days ago · am\1214327en.docx 5/351 pe658.738v01-00 en 11 11 com(2015)285....

$: AM Com LegReport · 2 days ago · AM\1214327EN.docx 5/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN 11 11 COM(2015)285. 11 11 COM(2015)285. Or. it Amendment 124 Anne-Sophie Pelletier Proposal for a directive$
AM\1214327EN.docx PE658.738v01-00

EN United in diversity EN

European Parliament2019-2024

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

2018/0329(COD)

28.9.2020

AMENDMENTS120 - 754Draft reportTineke Strik(PE648.370v01-00)

Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (recast)

Proposal for a directive(COM(2018)0634 – C8-0407/2018 – 2018/0329(COD))

PE658.738v01-00 2/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

AM_Com_LegReport

AM\1214327EN.docx 3/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Amendment 120Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Draft legislative resolutionParagraph 1

Draft legislative resolution Amendment

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out, taking into account the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

1. Proposal for a rejection

The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveTitle 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Proposal for aDIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCILon common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (recast)A contribution from the European Commission to the Leaders’ meeting inSalzburg on 19-20 September 2018

Proposal for aDIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCILon common standards and procedures in Member States for returning irregularly staying third-country nationals (recast)A contribution from the European Commission to the Leaders’ meeting inSalzburg on 19-20 September 2018

Or. en

Justification

This is a horizontal amendment, linked to amendments to recitals 6,9, 10,22, 25, 32, 40 and 47 and Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 22

PE658.738v01-00 4/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Amendment 122Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directiveTitle 1


Proposal for aDIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCILon common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (recast)A contribution from the European Commission to the Leaders’ meeting inSalzburg on 19-20 September 2018

Proposal for aDIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCILon common standards and procedures in Member States for returning irregularly staying third-country nationals (recast)A contribution from the European Commission to the Leaders’ meeting inSalzburg on 19-20 September 2018

Or. en

Justification

The word "illegal" is not considered as relevant in the context of migration. It will be replaced in the whole text by "irregular". International bodies including the United Nations General Assembly and International Organization for Migration have all recommended to use instead the terms “irregular” or “undocumented”. This is a horizontal amendment linked to articles 1,2,3,4,8,10,13,14,15 and 22.

Amendment 123Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directiveRecital 2


(2) An effective and fair return policy is an essential part of the Union’s approach to better manage migration in all aspects, as reflected in the European Agenda on Migration of May 201511.

(2) The external borders of the Member States are the borders of the Union. A joint return policy that is both effective and respectful of the rights of illegally staying migrants is an essential part of the Union’s approach to better manage migration in all aspects, as reflected in the European Agenda on Migration of May 201511.

_________________ _________________

AM\1214327EN.docx 5/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

11 11 COM(2015)285. 11 11 COM(2015)285.

Or. it




(2) An effective and fair return policy is an essential part of the Union's approach to better manage migration in all aspects, as reflected in the European Agenda on Migration of May 201511 .

(2) A dignified, humane, rights-based policy should be the basis of the Union's approach to better manage migration in all aspects.

_________________11 COM(2015) 285 final.

Or. en

Amendment 125Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel




(2) An effective and fair return policy is an essential part of the Union's approach to better manage migration in all aspects in a more balanced way, as reflected in the European Agenda on Migration of May 201511.

_________________ _________________11 11 COM(2015) 285 final. 11 11 COM(2015) 285 final.

Or. fr

PE658.738v01-00 6/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Amendment 126Charlie Weimers, Emmanouil Fragkos




(2) An effective, efficient and swift return policy is an essential part of the Union's approach to better manage migration in all aspects, as reflected in the European Agenda on Migration of May 201511 .

_________________ _________________11 COM(2015) 285 final. 11 COM(2015) 285 final.

Or. en




(3) On 28 June 2018, in its conclusions, the European Council underlined the necessity to significantly step up the effective return of irregular migrants, and welcomed the intention of the Commission to make legislative proposals for a more effective and coherent European return policy.

deleted

Or. en



AM\1214327EN.docx 7/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



(3) The rate of return of migrants in irregular situations in the Union remains too low. As stressed by the European Council on 28 June 2018, in its conclusions, it is necessary to adopt an effective and coherent European return policy with a view to significantly stepping up the effective return of irregular migrants through the improvement of return and readmission procedures, including through the conclusion of new bilateral readmission agreements and by ensuring that existing agreements are fully applied.

Or. it





(3) On 28 June 2018, in its conclusions, the European Council underlined the necessity to significantly step up the effective return of irregular migrants, and welcomed the intention of the Commission to make legislative proposals for a more effective and coherent European return policy. These conclusions were adopted in a context where the effective return rate was only 36.6% in 2017, which is wholly inadequate.

Or. fr

Amendment 130Tom Vandendriessche, Nicolas Bay


PE658.738v01-00 8/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


3. On 28 June 2018, in its conclusions, the European Council underlined the necessity to significantly step up the effective return of irregular migrants, and welcomed the intention of the Commission to make legislative proposals for a more effective and coherent European return policy.

(3) On 28 June 2018, in its conclusions, the European Council underlined the necessity to significantly step up the effective return of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers, and welcomed the intention of the Commission to make legislative proposals for a more effective and coherent European return policy.

(This amendment applies throughout the entire text.)

Or. nl

Justification

The new term ‘irregular migration’ creates uncertainty surrounding the essential characteristic of illegal immigration, namely that it is immigration that contravenes the law.


Proposal for a directiveRecital 3 a (new)


(3a) On 19 December 2018, the United Nations General Assembly endorsed the UN Global Compact on Migration. States committed in this text to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorised officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. They also committed to prioritize non-custodial alternatives to detention that are in line with

AM\1214327EN.docx 9/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled to recital 4.




(3a) The implementation of joint awareness-raising campaigns in third countries on the risks inherent in irregular migration and on the Union’s return policy should be strengthened.

Or. it

Amendment 133Tom Vandendriessche



(4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity , as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations. Clear, transparent and fair rules need to be established to provide for an effective return policy which serves as a deterrent to

(4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity , as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations. Clear, transparent and fair rules need to be established to provide for an effective return policy which serves as a deterrent to

PE658.738v01-00 10/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

irregular migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system.

irregular migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system. These common standards cannot, however, infringe in any way Member States’ sovereign right and obligation, in accordance with Article 15 of the ECHR amongst others, to defend and safeguard their territories and populations against the nefarious consequences of unfettered legal or illegal migration.

Or. nl

Justification

There is no hierarchy in the articles of the ECHR. All articles carry equal weight.

Amendment 134Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa



(4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity , as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations. Clear, transparent and fair rules need to be established to provide for an effective return policy which serves as a deterrent to irregular migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system .

(4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity , as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations. Clear, transparent and fair rules need to be established to provide for an effective European return policy.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 11/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification

The shadow rapporteur wants to keep the wording of the previous directive.





(4) That European return policy should be based on common standards and international law, and in close cooperation with third countries to ensure effective and swift return procedures. An effective return policy includes the substantial increase of the rate of return, serves as a deterrent to irregular migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system .

Or. en

Amendment 136Maria Grapini



(4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity , as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations. Clear, transparent and fair rules need to be established to provide for an effective

(4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons to be returned in a humane manner irrespective of their status and with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity , as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations. Clear, transparent, non-discriminatory and fair rules need to be

PE658.738v01-00 12/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

return policy which serves as a deterrent to irregular migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system.

established to provide for an effective return policy which serves as a deterrent to irregular migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system.

Or. ro





(4) Member States should not be obliged to adopt and implement a return policy. If a Member State chooses to do so, its return policy should be only voluntary and based on common standards, for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity , as well as international law, including refugee protection, protection of the rights of the child, protection of persons in vulnerable situation, protection of stateless persons and other human rights obligations. Clear, transparent and rights-based rules need to be established.

Or. en




(4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons

(4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons

AM\1214327EN.docx 13/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity, as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations. Clear, transparent and fair rules need to be established to provide for an effective return policy which serves as a deterrent to irregular migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system.

to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity, as well as international law. Clear, transparent and fair rules need to be established to provide for an effective return policy which serves as a deterrent to irregular migration, reduces incentives for illegal migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system.

Or. fr




(4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity , as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations. Clear, transparent and fair rules need to be established to provide for an effective return policy which serves as a deterrent to irregular migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system.

(4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity , as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations. Clear, transparent and fair rules need to be established to provide for an effective return policy which serves as a deterrent to illegal migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system.

(This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)

Or. nl

Justification

The word ‘illegal’ is to be preferred for reasons of clarity. The issue at hand is migration that

PE658.738v01-00 14/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

does not comply with the law.




(5) This Directive should establish a horizontal set of rules, applicable to all third-country nationals who do not or who no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in a Member State.

(5) This Directive should establish a horizontal set of rules, applicable to all third-country nationals who do not or who no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in a Member State. These horizontal rules should not impede sovereign Member States from imposing stricter rules on third country citizens as befits each Member State’s particular social and economic situation.

Or. nl

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to recital 3 (as amended) on the need for an effective return policy and recital 4 on Member State sovereignty.




(6) Member States should ensure that the ending of illegal stay of third-country nationals is carried out through a fair and transparent procedure. According to general principles of EU law, decisions taken under this Directive should be adopted on a case-by-case basis and based on objective criteria, implying that consideration should go beyond the mere fact of an illegal stay. When using

(6) Member States should ensure that the ending of illegal stay of third-country nationals is carried out through a fair, final, transparent, and swift procedure. According to general principles of EU law, decisions taken under this Directive should be adopted on a case-by-case basis and based on objective criteria. When using standard forms for decisions related to return, namely return decisions and, if

AM\1214327EN.docx 15/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

standard forms for decisions related to return, namely return decisions and, if issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal, Member States should respect that principle and fully comply with all applicable provisions of this Directive.

issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal, Member States should respect that principle and fully comply with all applicable provisions of this Directive. Member States should not limit themselves to taking decisions but should also implement them, using all legal means at their disposal, including temporary detention preceding repatriation without delay.

Or. nl

Justification

This amendment on effective implementation is linked to recital 3 on the need for an effective return policy.




(6) Member States should ensure that the ending of illegal stay of third-country nationals is carried out through a fair and transparent procedure. According to general principles of EU law, decisions taken under this Directive should be adopted on a case-by-case basis and based on objective criteria, implying that consideration should go beyond the mere fact of an illegal stay. When using standard forms for decisions related to return, namely return decisions and, if issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal, Member States should respect that principle and fully comply with all applicable provisions of this Directive.

(6) Member States should ensure that, when a third-country national is found to be staying irregularly, a procedure should be established to check whether his or her stay should be regularised based on his or her existing ties to the Member State through a rights-based, fair and transparent procedure. According to general principles of EU law, decisions taken under this Directive should be adopted on a case-by-case basis and based on objective criteria, implying that consideration should go beyond the mere fact of an irregular stay. No provisions under this Directive should undermine the principle of individualised decision-making and prevent an examination of the circumstances of each individual case.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 16/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Justification

These changes are in line with the changes proposed in recital 4.




(6) Member States should ensure that the ending of illegal stay of third-country nationals is carried out through a fair and transparent procedure. According to general principles of EU law, decisions taken under this Directive should be adopted on a case-by-case basis and based on objective criteria, implying that consideration should go beyond the mere fact of an illegal stay. When using standard forms for decisions related to return, namely return decisions and, if issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal, Member States should respect that principle and fully comply with all applicable provisions of this Directive.

(6) Member States should ensure that the ending of illegal stay of third-country nationals is carried out through a fair, humane and transparent procedure, with more effective return procedures. According to general principles of EU law, decisions taken under this Directive should be adopted on a case-by-case basis and based on objective criteria, implying that consideration should go beyond the mere fact of an illegal stay. When using standard forms for decisions related to return, namely return decisions and, if issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal, Member States should respect that principle and fully comply with all applicable provisions of this Directive.

Or. ro




(6) Member States should ensure that the ending of illegal stay of third-country nationals is carried out through a fair and transparent procedure. According to general principles of EU law, decisions taken under this Directive should be

(6) Member States should ensure that the ending of irregular stay of third-country nationals is carried out through a fair and transparent procedure. According to general principles of EU law, decisions taken under this Directive should be

AM\1214327EN.docx 17/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

adopted on a case-by-case basis and based on objective criteria, implying that consideration should go beyond the mere fact of an illegal stay. When using standard forms for decisions related to return, namely return decisions and, if issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal, Member States should respect that principle and fully comply with all applicable provisions of this Directive.

adopted on a case-by-case basis and based on objective criteria, implying that consideration should go beyond the mere fact of an irregular stay. When using standard forms for decisions related to return, namely return decisions and, if issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal, Member States should respect that principle and fully comply with all applicable provisions of this Directive.

Or. en

Justification





(7) The link between the decision on ending of the legal stay of a third-country national and the issuing of a return decision should be reinforced in order to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised secondary movements. It is necessary to ensure that a return decision is issued immediately after the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or ideally in the same act or decision. That requirement should in particular apply to cases where an application for international protection is rejected, provided that the return procedure is suspended until that rejection becomes final and pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection.

deleted

PE658.738v01-00 18/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Or. en

Justification

In different member states, decisions on asylum are not issued by the same authorities. The separation between the two authorities is a guarantee of independence. This recital is linked to the amendment on article 8.





deleted

Or. en

Justification

This recital is deleted in line with amendments tabled to Article 8 (6)

Amendment 147Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Olivier Chastel, Michal Šimečka

Proposal for a directive

AM\1214327EN.docx 19/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Recital 7



(7) The link between the decision on ending of the legal stay of a third-country national and the issuing of a return decision should be reinforced in order to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised secondary movements. It is necessary to ensure that a return decision is issued immediately after the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or ideally in the same act or decision. That requirement should in particular apply to cases where an application for international protection is rejected. This should always be under the condition that the full scope of the principle of non-refoulement under European and international law is individually assessed in the asylum procedure and that the return procedure is automatically suspended until that rejection becomes final and pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection.

Or. en

Justification

Not all Member States fully assess the aspect of refoulement under the return acquis during the asylum procedure, or in taking the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay. Also, such immediate issuing of a return decision should not frustrate possible efforts to lodge an appeal, or invoking other grounds to stay, and the right to remain on the territory during such appeals.




(7) The link between the decision on ending of the legal stay of a third-country national and the issuing of a return decision

(7) The link between the decision on ending of the legal stay of a third-country national, the issuing of a return decision

PE658.738v01-00 20/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

should be reinforced in order to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised secondary movements. It is necessary to ensure that a return decision is issued immediately after the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or ideally in the same act or decision. That requirement should in particular apply to cases where an application for international protection is rejected, provided that the return procedure is suspended until that rejection becomes final and pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection.

and its actual execution should be reinforced in order to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised secondary movements. It is necessary to ensure that a return decision is issued and executed at the same time as the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay. That requirement should in particular apply to cases where an application for international protection is rejected, provided that the return procedure is suspended until that rejection becomes final and pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection. There should be only one possibility of appeal, and there should be prima facie procedural reasons for declaring an appeal admissible.

Or. nl





(7) The link between the decision on ending of the legal stay of a third-country national and the issuing of a return decision should be reinforced in order to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised secondary movements. It is necessary to ensure that a return decision is issued immediately after the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or ideally in the same act or decision. That requirement should in particular apply to cases where an application for international protection is rejected;

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 21/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN





(7) The link between the decision on ending the legal stay of a third-country national and the issuing of a return decision should be reinforced. It is necessary to ensure that a return decision is issued immediately after the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or ideally in the same act or decision. That requirement should apply to cases where an application for international protection is rejected, provided that the return procedure is suspended until that rejection becomes final and pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection.

Or. it




(7) The link between the decision on ending of the legal stay of a third-country national and the issuing of a return decision should be reinforced in order to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised secondary movements. It is necessary to ensure that a return decision is issued immediately after the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or ideally in the same act or decision. That

(7) In order to make the return policy more coherent, clearer and easier to comprehend, the link between the decision on ending of the legal stay of a third-country national and the issuing of a return decision should be reinforced in order to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised secondary movements. It is necessary to ensure that a return decision is issued immediately after

PE658.738v01-00 22/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

requirement should in particular apply to cases where an application for international protection is rejected, provided that the return procedure is suspended until that rejection becomes final and pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection.

the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or ideally in the same act or decision. That requirement should in particular apply to cases where an application for international protection is rejected.

Or. fr




(8) The need for Union and bilateral readmission agreements with third countries to facilitate the return process is underlined. International cooperation with countries of origin at all stages of the return process is a prerequisite to achieving sustainable return.

deleted

Or. en

Justification


Amendment 153Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen



(8) The need for Union and bilateral readmission agreements with third countries to facilitate the return process is underlined. International cooperation with

(8) The need for Union readmission agreements with third countries to facilitate the return process is underlined. International cooperation with countries of

AM\1214327EN.docx 23/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

countries of origin at all stages of the return process is a prerequisite to achieving sustainable return.

origin at all stages of the return process is a prerequisite to achieving sustainable return. This should be improved through constructive migration dialogues and the use of positive incentives, including financial, to improve the identification and readmission of returnees. Union formal readmission agreements negotiated by the Commission and coupled with Union parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight are crucial to achieve this.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled on Recital 47 on readmission agreements. To ensure common Union standards, democratic scrutiny and judicial review, return cooperation should always be based on formal Union readmission agreements.





(8) The need for Union and bilateral readmission agreements with third countries to facilitate the return process is underlined. International cooperation with countries of origin at all stages of the return process is a prerequisite to achieving sustainable return. Third countries that refuse to readmit their own nationals should bear the financial consequences of that decision.

Or. nl


PE658.738v01-00 24/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




(8) The need for Union and bilateral readmission agreements with third countries to facilitate the return process is underlined. International cooperation with countries of origin at all stages of the return process is a prerequisite to achieving a sustainable, safe return which ensures the protection of persons.

Or. ro




(8a) In the event of a lack of cooperation by certain third countries regarding readmission of their nationals who have been apprehended in irregular situations and failure by those third countries to cooperate effectively in the return process, some of the provisions of the Visa Code should, on the basis of objective criteria, be applied in a restrictive and temporary manner to enhance a given third country’s cooperation on readmission.

Or. fr



AM\1214327EN.docx 25/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


(9) It is recognised that it is legitimate for Member States to return illegally staying third-country nationals, provided that fair and efficient asylum systems are in place which fully respect the principle of non-refoulement.

(9) It is recognised that it is legitimate for Member States to return illegally staying third-country nationals, provided that fair and efficient asylum systems are in place which fully respect the principle of non-refoulement. In the interests of fairness and efficiency, asylum systems should be limited to applications by nationals of (allegedly) unsafe countries.

Or. nl

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to recital 3, which stresses the need for a more effective returns policy.





(9) It is recognised that it is imperative that Member States have asylum systems in place which fully respect international human rights law and international refugee law, the principle of non-refoulement as well as migration policies that abide by applicable international standards on migration and the protection of migrant workers.

Or. en

Justification


Amendment 159Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud,

PE658.738v01-00 26/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod




(9) It is recognised that it is legitimate for Member States to return illegally staying third-country nationals, provided that efficient asylum systems are in place.

Or. fr

Justification

In order to achieve consistency with the amendments to Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph and Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1, the references to the principle of non-refoulement should be deleted.





(9) It is recognised that it is legitimate for Member States to return irregularly staying third-country nationals, provided that fair and efficient asylum systems are in place which fully respect the principle of non-refoulement.

Or. en

Justification


AM\1214327EN.docx 27/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




(10) In accordance with Council Directive 2005/85/EC12 , a third-country national who has applied for asylum in a Member State should not be regarded as staying illegally on the territory of that Member State until a negative decision on the application, or a decision ending his or her right of stay as asylum seeker has entered into force.

(10) In accordance with Council Directive 2005/85/EC12 , a third-country national who has applied for asylum in a Member State should not be regarded as staying irregularly on the territory of that Member State until a negative decision on the application, or a decision ending his or her right of stay as asylum seeker has entered into force. Victims of trafficking in human beings who are in the process of being granted a residence permit pursuant to Council Directive 2004/81/EC should not be regarded as staying irregularly on the territory of the Member State until a final decision on the issuance of the residence permit is taken by the competent authority.

_________________ _________________12 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13).

12 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13).

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled to recital 4 which provides that the European return policy should be based on international law, including refugee protection, protection of the rights of the child, protection of stateless persons and human rights obligations, which includes protection of victims of trafficking of human beings.

Amendment 162Pietro Bartolo


PE658.738v01-00 28/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Recital 10


(10) In accordance with Council Directive 2005/85/EC 12, a third-country national who has applied for asylum in a Member State should not be regarded as staying illegally on the territory of that Member State until a negative decision on the application, or a decision ending his or her right of stay as asylum seeker has entered into force.

(10) In accordance with Council Directive 2005/85/EC12, a third-country national who has applied for asylum in a Member State should not be regarded as staying illegally on the territory of that Member State until a negative decision on the application, or a final decision ending their right of stay as asylum seeker has entered into force, without prejudice to humanitarian or other reasons that prevent return.



Or. it

Justification

The right of residence must be lost when a final decision is issued and in any event it must remain possible for the State to issue, for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons, an autonomous residence permit or another authorisation granting the right of residence to a third-country national. The amendment is linked to the amendment submitted in relation to recital 19 in that it specifies that the right of residence shall end with a final decision and provides for suspension for other reasons.




(10) In accordance with Council Directive 2005/85/EC12 , a third-country national who has applied for asylum in a Member State should not be regarded as staying illegally on the territory of that Member State until a negative decision on

(10) In accordance with Council Directive 2005/85/EC12 , a third-country national who has applied for asylum in a Member State should not be regarded as staying irregularly on the territory of that Member State until a negative decision on

AM\1214327EN.docx 29/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

the application, or a decision ending his or her right of stay as asylum seeker has entered into force.

the application, or a decision ending his or her right of stay as asylum seeker has entered into force.



Or. en

Justification





(11) To ensure clearer and more effective rules for granting a period for voluntary departure and detaining a third-country national, determining whether there is or there is not a risk of absconding should be based on Union-wide objective criteria. Moreover this Directive should set out specific criteria which establish a ground for a rebuttable presumption that a risk of absconding exists.

(11) To ensure clearer rules for voluntary departure, Union-wide provisions aimed at providing the opportunity for voluntary departure and avoiding recourse to detention should be established. Moreover this Directive should oblige Member States to set out an exhaustive list of specific and objective criteria in their national law, in lines with guidelines to be set up by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, that would guarantee that the return has been carried out voluntarily, including absence of any physical, psychological, or material pressure following an examination of the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned.

PE658.738v01-00 30/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Or. en

Justification

These changes are line with the changes proposed in recital 4.





(11) To ensure clearer and more effective rules for granting a period for voluntary departure and detaining a third-country national, determining whether there is or there is not a risk of absconding should be based on a non-exhaustive list of Union-wide objective criteria. Moreover this Directive should set out specific criteria which establish a ground for a rebuttable presumption that a risk of absconding exists. Third-country nationals should be obliged to provide all the elements in their possession that are necessary in order to assess the risk of absconding.

Or. fr




(11) To ensure clearer and more effective rules for granting a period for voluntary departure and detaining a third-country national, determining whether there is or there is not a risk of absconding should be based on Union-wide objective

(11) To ensure clearer and more effective rules for detaining a third-country national, determining whether there is or there is not a risk of absconding should be based on Union-wide objective, exhaustive

AM\1214327EN.docx 31/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

criteria. Moreover this Directive should set out specific criteria which establish a ground for a rebuttable presumption that a risk of absconding exists.

and limited list of criteria.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur considers that a limited, precise and shared by all Member states list of criteria would harmonize the notion of the risk of absconding. This recital is linked to amendment on article 6.





(11) To ensure a more effective return policy, the Member States will take sovereign decisions on a case-by-case basis, determining whether there is or there is not a risk of absconding based on objective criteria. Since Member States’ social and economic situations can differ substantially, this Directive should be limited to providing examples of criteria to allow the risk of absconding to be determined.

Or. nl

Amendment 168Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Dragoş Tudorache, Fabienne Keller



(11) To ensure clearer and more (11) To ensure clearer and more

PE658.738v01-00 32/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

effective rules for granting a period for voluntary departure and detaining a third-country national, determining whether there is or there is not a risk of absconding should be based on Union-wide objective criteria. Moreover this Directive should set out specific criteria which establish a ground for a rebuttable presumption that a risk of absconding exists.

effective rules for granting a period for voluntary departure and detaining a third-country national, determining whether there is or there is not a risk of absconding should be based on a closed, harmonized and exhaustive list of proven, Union-wide objective criteria defined by law.

Or. en

Justification

There should always be, in coherence with the amendments made to Art. 6, an individual assessment. A presumption of a risk of absconding weakens the consideration of all relevant criteria to be looked at in an individual assessment. To ensure European harmonisation an exhaustive list of objective criteria should be included in the Directive.





(11) To ensure clearer and more effective rules for granting a period for voluntary departure and detaining a third-country national, determining whether there is or there is not a risk of absconding should be based solely on objective criteria laid down by this Directive and determined by a judicial or administrative authority following consideration of the individual circumstances of the case.

Or. it



AM\1214327EN.docx 33/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


(11a) Unless the Member States decide not to apply this Directive, pursuant to Article 2(2)(b), when determining the risk of absconding the relevant national authorities may take into consideration an infringement of the criminal law of Member States, including the rules on migration. Such authorities may also take into account the existence of an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution that has not yet led to a conviction, where provided by national law.

Or. fr




(12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear responsibilities for third-country nationals should be established, and in particular the obligation to cooperate with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure, including by providing the information and elements that are necessary in order to assess their individual situation. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that third-country nationals are informed of the consequences of not complying with those obligations, in relation to the determination of the risk of absconding, the granting of a period for voluntary departure and the possibility to impose detention, and to the access to programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.

deleted

PE658.738v01-00 34/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur has modify the article 7 on cooperation. This recital is directly linked to these modifications.

Amendment 172Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod




(12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear responsibilities for third-country nationals should be established, and in particular the obligation to cooperate with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure, including by providing the information and elements that are necessary in order to assess their individual situation. The determination of their real age, through bone or dental tests, is vital in order to verify the truth of their statements on this subject, making it possible to assess their good faith, and to protect genuine unaccompanied minors by distinguishing between them and those making false claims. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that third-country nationals are informed of the consequences of not complying with those obligations, in relation to the determination of the risk of absconding, the granting of a period for voluntary departure and the possibility to impose detention, and to the access to programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.

Or. fr

Amendment 173

AM\1214327EN.docx 35/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel




(12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear responsibilities for third-country nationals should be established, and in particular the obligation to cooperate in good faith with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure, including by providing all the information and all elements in their possession that are necessary in order to assess their individual situation. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that third-country nationals are informed of the consequences of not complying with those obligations, in relation to the determination of the risk of absconding, the granting of a period for voluntary departure and the possibility to impose detention and penalties where provided for by national law, and to the access to programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.

Or. fr




(12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear responsibilities for third-country nationals should be established, and in particular the obligation to cooperate with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure, including by providing the information and elements that are necessary in order to assess their

(12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure in accordance with EU standards, clear responsibilities for third-country nationals should be established, and in particular the obligation to cooperate with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure, including by providing the information and elements

PE658.738v01-00 36/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

individual situation. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that third-country nationals are informed of the consequences of not complying with those obligations, in relation to the determination of the risk of absconding, the granting of a period for voluntary departure and the possibility to impose detention, and to the access to programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.

that are necessary in order to assess their individual situation. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that third-country nationals are informed of the consequences of not complying with those obligations, in relation to the determination of the risk of absconding, the granting of a period for voluntary departure and the possibility to impose detention, and to the access to programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.

Or. ro





(12) It is necessary to ensure that third-country nationals are provided with all relevant information on the return procedure in a language they understand so that they can engage with the return procedure. In particular, Member States should have the obligation to provide timely and adequate information to third-country nationals on the process of return including in relation to the different stages of the return procedure, the granting of a period for voluntary departure, the determination and consequences of absconding, the possibility to impose detention, available remedies, possible application of entry-bans and access to programmes providing legal, logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 37/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification

Timely and adequate information should be provided to the third country nationals if a Member State decided to implement a return policy. These changes are in line with the changes proposed in recital 4.




(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third-country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

(13) In the interests of legal certainty, the equal treatment of all third-country nationals awaiting repatriation and the efficiency of asylum systems, forced return should be preferred over voluntary return. In exceptional individual circumstances, a sovereign Member State may opt for a period for voluntary departure. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third-country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. nl

Justification

In the interests of legal certainty, equal treatment and the efficiency of asylum systems, forced return should become the default option.


PE658.738v01-00 38/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




(13) Voluntary return should always be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of thirty days should be granted. Member states should be able to decide to grant a shorter period for voluntary departure of minimum 7 days and exceptionally not to grant a period for voluntary departure where it has been assessed that third country nationals pose a genuine and present risk to public policy, public security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

Or. en

Justification

30 days seem to be an appropriate period to organize a voluntary departure. Nevertheless, in case of explicit expression of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of the Directive or non-compliance with a measure aiming at preventing the risk of absconding, or if the third national poses a genuine and present risk to public policy, national security or public security, this period could be shorten to 7 days; Member states may also not grant a period of voluntary departure. This amendment is linked to article 9.

Amendment 178Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Hilde Vautmans



AM\1214327EN.docx 39/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third-country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case and in the case of children, the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration in an extension decision.

Or. en

Amendment 179Monika Hohlmeier, Lena Düpont



(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third-country nationals pose a risk of

(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. Member States should ensure that those third-country nationals where it has been assessed that they pose a risk of absconding, have had a

PE658.738v01-00 40/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or that they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security in particular on grounds of terrorism or serious crime, are not be granted a period for voluntary departure. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

Or. en

Amendment 180Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen




(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of thirty days should be granted. Exceptionally, a period for voluntary departure of no less than 15 days could also be granted, after an individual assessment of the prospect of voluntary return. A period of less than 15 days can only be granted where it has been individually assessed, in line with the exhaustive list of objective criteria as outlined in this Directive, that third-country nationals pose a risk of absconding or had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an

AM\1214327EN.docx 41/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

individual case.

Or. en

Justification

In line with the amendments to Article 9, all options for voluntary departure should be strengthened, including by offering a 30 day period of voluntary return. Shorter periods are to be possible under certain conditions. The “public policy, public security or national security” ground for refusing a period for voluntary departure introduced by the Commission is not specific enough and can be properly dealt with under current criminal and administrative law. There appears to be no good reason not to also grant the possibility of voluntary departure to those whose requests are manifestly unfounded.




(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to 30 days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third-country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of 30 days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third-country nationals pose a risk of absconding within the meaning of this Directive or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security, duly evidenced either by a conviction or by elements that substantiate the assessment that they represent a danger to the public. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

Or. it

PE658.738v01-00 42/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN





(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure cannot be granted where it has been assessed that third-country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent, manifestly unfounded or inadmissible, or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

Or. fr




(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary

(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary

AM\1214327EN.docx 43/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third-country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third-country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure may be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

Or. en




(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third-country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered

(13) If a Member State chooses to implement a return policy, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and a period for voluntary departure of six months should be granted. Member States should be able to decide not to grant a period for voluntary departure where it has been assessed that third-country nationals pose a genuine, present and evidence-based risk to public security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case, including to children to finish their studies, to pregnant women to give birth to their children, to victims of trafficking waiting for justice while their case is pending and to ill persons with healthcare

PE658.738v01-00 44/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

needs.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 9 relating to voluntary departure.




(14) In order to promote voluntary return, Member States should have operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, which may include support for reintegration in third countries of return, taking into account the common standards on Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programmes developed by the Commission in cooperation with Member States and endorsed by the Council.

deleted

Or. nl

Justification

Assistance in a third country is that country’s responsibility. Financial sanctions should be imposed on third countries that do not want to cooperate in readmitting and reintegrating their own citizens.



AM\1214327EN.docx 45/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



(14) In order to promote voluntary departure , Member States may have operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, which may include support for reintegration in third countries of return. The common standards on Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programmes developed by the Commission in cooperation with Member States and endorsed by the Council could be taken into account.Voluntary return assistance should be granted in accordance with national regulations, which may make such assistance subject to conditions and may set out grounds for refusing it. This Directive does not establish a universal or absolute right for third-country nationals to receive assistance for voluntary departure or reintegration.

Or. fr





(14) In order to promote voluntary return, Member States should have operational programmes providing for case management, enhanced return assistance and counselling, which should include support for reintegration in third countries of return, taking into account the common standards on Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programmes developed by the Commission in cooperation with Member States and endorsed by the Council. Voluntary return, assisted

PE658.738v01-00 46/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

voluntary return and reintegration programmes are essential pillars of a Union migration policy and allow migrants to return in a humane, dignified and rights-based manner. Voluntary return should be allowed at all stages of the procedure.

Or. en

Amendment 188Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Olivier Chastel, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Dragoş Tudorache, Michal Šimečka




(14) In order to promote voluntary return, Member States should have operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, which should include support for reintegration in third countries of return tailored to the individual circumstances and prospects of the returnee, with particular attention for unaccompanied minors, taking into account the common standards on Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programmes developed by the Commission in cooperation with Member States and endorsed by the Council.

Or. en




AM\1214327EN.docx 47/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


(14) In order to promote voluntary return, Member States should have operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, which should include support for reintegration in third countries of return, taking into account the common standards on Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programmes developed by the Commission in cooperation with Member States and endorsed by the Council.

Or. en

Justification

Reintegration is a key factor of an effective and sustainable return. This amendment is linked to Article 14.





(14) In order to promote voluntary return, Member States may have operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, which may include support for reintegration in third countries of return, taking into account the common standards on Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programmes developed by the Commission in cooperation with Member States and endorsed by the Council.

Or. en


PE658.738v01-00 48/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN



(14a) In accordance with Directive 2009/52/EC, Member States should ensure that there are effective mechanisms through which third-country nationals can lodge complaints against their employers. In accordance with Directive 2012/29/EU, Member States should ensure that all victims of crime receive appropriate information, support and protection and are able to participate in criminal proceedings. To this end, adequate mechanisms ensuring portable justice and access to redress mechanisms should be established as part of the national programmes on return and should ensure access to justice for issues relating to violations of Directive 2009/52/EC or Directive 2012/29/EU throughout the return procedure, including measures to ensure access to justice after return to a third country.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 14.




(14a) Member States shall ensure that third-country nationals receive information on the return procedure in a language that they understand. In the case of vulnerable persons, in particular

AM\1214327EN.docx 49/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

unaccompanied minors, this information shall be supplied in a manner that is appropriate to the unaccompanied minor’s age and ability to understand, including by using multimedia formats.

Or. it




(15) A common minimum set of legal safeguards on decisions related to return should be established to guarantee effective protection of the interests of the individuals concerned.

deleted

Or. nl

Justification

Sovereign Member States observe the rule of law and international treaties, while taking their own social and economic circumstances into account. The EU should not intervene in this area. This amendment is closely linked to recital 4 on Member State sovereignty.




(15a) Member States should ensure that a vulnerability assessment is carried out for persons facing return procedures. Factors increasing the risk of vulnerability may include, among others: individual factors such as age, sex, gender, status in society, beliefs and

PE658.738v01-00 50/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

attitudes, emotional, psychological and cognitive characteristics, physical and mental well-being, household and family factors, community factors, structural factors or situational factors.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 38 and Article 14.




(15a) Member States should ensure that persons facing return procedures do not intentionally and fraudulently exploit factors that might be considered as potentially increasing their vulnerability

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is necessary for reasons relating to the internal logic of the text as intended by the Commission in Article 14 with the effective functioning and setting up of national return management systems.




(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an

(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an

AM\1214327EN.docx 51/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding five days should be granted to appeal against a return decision. This provision should only apply following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review.

effective remedy, which should not in any event be less than 30 days.

Or. it

Justification

The term ‘enough time’, without a maximum number of days, could lead to differing practices, harmful to individuals’ rights, in various Member States. This amendment is linked to Article 16.




(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding five days should be granted to appeal against a return decision. This provision should only apply following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review.

(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 52/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Justification

The maximum time limit of five days to lodge an appeal in case the return decision is the consequence of a decision rejecting an asylum application should be deleted. Such short time limit undermines the effectiveness of the appeal in practice.





(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is related to Article 16. It's necessary to provide third country nationals with a sufficient time to lodge an appeal. The shadow rapporteur is furthermore against having different rules for asylum seekers whom claim has been rejected and irregular migrants.

Amendment 199Nadine Morano (PPE)



(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal (16) The deadline for lodging an appeal

AM\1214327EN.docx 53/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding five days should be granted to appeal against a return decision. This provision should only apply following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review.

against decisions related to return must ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding two days should be granted to appeal to a court or tribunal against a return decision.

Or. fr





(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding five days should be granted to appeal against a return decision.

Or. nl

Justification

The original text stacks one appeal on top of the next, creating a judicial carousel. A decision on removal implies the refusal of a request for international protection. These decisions should be taken as one, with a single right of appeal

PE658.738v01-00 54/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN





(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures, and the appeal procedure should be notified to third-country nationals within the deadline for lodging an appeal. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding five days should be granted to appeal against a return decision. This provision should only apply following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review.

Or. ro




(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding five days should be granted to

(16) The deadline for lodging a judicial appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy. A limit of 30 days should be granted from notification of the return decision in which to appeal against the decision. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding 15 days

AM\1214327EN.docx 55/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

appeal against a return decision. This provision should only apply following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review.

should be granted to appeal against a return decision following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final.

Or. it

Amendment 203Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen




(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period between ten and fifteen days should be granted to appeal against a return decision. This provision should only apply following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review.

Or. en

Justification

The short period of five days provided for in the Commission proposal is too short to make effective use of the right to an appeal. A period of between 10 and 15 days is the minimum needed to enable individuals to make an informed decision about whether or not to lodge an appeal.


PE658.738v01-00 56/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding three days should be granted to appeal against a return decision. This provision should only apply following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review.

Or. fr




(17) The appeal against a return decision that is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection which was already subject to an effective judicial remedy should take place before a single level of jurisdiction only, since the third-county national concerned would have already had his or her individual situation examined and decided upon by a judicial authority in the context of the asylum procedure.

deleted

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 57/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN





deleted

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur considers that it's not the aim of this recast to modify the organisation of the jurisdictions in the member states and to have different rules for asylum seekers whom claim has been rejected and irregular migrants. This amendment is related to Article 16.





(17) The appeal against a return decision that is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection which was already subject to an effective judicial remedy should be declared inadmissible.

PE658.738v01-00 58/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Or. nl

Justification

Return decisions are the logical outcome of a decision rejecting an application for international protection and should thus be an integral part of the same administrative act. A right to a second appeal is, therefore, superfluous.

Amendment 208Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Michal Šimečka




(17) The appeal against a return decision that is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection which was already subject to an effective judicial remedy could take place before a single level of jurisdiction only, only when the third-county national concerned would have already had his or her individual situation examined and decided upon by a judicial authority in the context of the asylum procedure, including an individual assessment of the full scope of the principle of non-refoulement under European and international law.

Or. en

Justification

Obliging Member States to limit this to a single level of jurisdiction would effectively prevent Member States from affording additional judicial review, should they wish to do so. It thereby unnecessarily restricts the possibilities of Member States. Not all Member States fully assess the aspect of refoulement under the return acquis during the asylum procedure, or in taking the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay. That should thus be a precondition for allowing only a single level of jurisdiction.


AM\1214327EN.docx 59/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



(17) The appeal against a return decision that is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection that was already subject to an effective judicial remedy should take place before a single level of jurisdiction only, since the third-county national concerned would have already had his or her individual situation examined and decided upon by a judicial authority in the context of the asylum procedure.

(17) To facilitate the operation of the courts and tribunals and to prevent delaying tactics designed to obstruct returns, Member States should ensure that appeals against return decisions are limited, as far as possible, to a single level of jurisdiction only, while guaranteeing the right to an effective remedy.

Or. fr

Amendment 210Nicolas Bay, Jean-Paul Garraud




(17) (Does not affect English version.)

Or. fr

Justification

Does not affect English version.

PE658.738v01-00 60/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




(17a) Member States shall have the option to keep administrative review proceedings prior to an appeal before a court or tribunal, provided that the administrative review does not affect the effectiveness of the return procedure.

Or. fr


Proposal for a directiveRecital 17 b (new)


(17b) A body that carries out a judicial function should be categorised as a court or tribunal if it has been established by law, is permanent, independent and impartial, and has an inter partes procedure, if its jurisdiction is compulsory, if it applies the rule of law, and if it offers the requisite procedural guarantees.

Or. fr



AM\1214327EN.docx 61/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


(18) An appeal against a return decision should have an automatic suspensive effect only in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement.

deleted

Or. fr

Justification






(18) The effect of a return decision should be automatically suspended during the period for lodging the appeal against such decision at first instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the set period, during the examination of the appeal and until the decision on the appeal has been notified to the applicant, in particular where there is a risk of breach of the principle on non-refoulement. An appeal against a return decision should have an automatic suspensive effect including when there are cases pending before a criminal court, in order to ensure access to justice for both victims and suspects.

Or. en


PE658.738v01-00 62/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




(18) An appeal against a return decision should have an automatic suspensive effect only in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement. An appeal against a return decision is only admissible if the appellant has voluntarily entered secure detention pending the outcome of the appeal.

Or. nl

Justification

Secure detention during the appeals process prevents appeals from being lodged purely to prolong the asylum process and/or abscond.

Amendment 216Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Michal Šimečka




(18) An appeal against a return decision should always have an automatic suspensive effect except where judicial authorities have fully assessed the principle of non-refoulement and have found that this principle does not risk to be breached.

Or. en

Justification

Given the irreversibility of the fundamental rights violations during and after return, appeals should always have a suspensive effect. Otherwise there is no real effective remedy. In addition, the logic in the Commission proposal would unnecessarily burden the Member States' authorities as the need for a suspensive effect would have to be assessed individually

AM\1214327EN.docx 63/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

and separately.





(18) An appeal against a return decision shall always have an automatic suspensive effect.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is related to Article 16. The suspensive effect is the sole guarantee to have access to an effective remedy.





(18) An appeal against a return decision should not have an automatic suspensive effect.

Or. fr



PE658.738v01-00 64/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


(19) In cases where the principle of non-refoulement is not at stake, appeals against a return decision should not have an automatic suspensive effect. The judicial authorities should be able to temporarily suspend the enforcement of a return decision in individual cases for other reasons, either upon request of the third-country national concerned or acting ex officio, where deemed necessary. Such decisions should, as a rule, be taken within 48 hours. Where justified by the complexity of the case, judicial authorities should take such decision without undue delay.

(19) Member States should, however, have the option to temporarily suspend a return decision where deemed necessary.

Or. fr





(19) In cases where the principle of non-refoulement is not at stake, appeals against a return decision should not have an automatic suspensive effect.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 65/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Amendment 221Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa




(19) The judicial authorities should be able to suspend the enforcement of a return decision in individual cases for other reasons, either upon request of the third-country national concerned or acting ex officio, where deemed necessary. Such decisions should be taken without undue delay.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is linked to Article 16. The shadow rapporteur wants to keep the wording of the previous directive.




(19) In cases where the principle of non-refoulement is not at stake, appeals against a return decision should not have an automatic suspensive effect. The judicial authorities should be able to temporarily suspend the enforcement of a return decision in individual cases for other

(19) The judicial authorities should be able to suspend the enforcement of a return decision in individual cases where the principle of non refoulement is at stake and for other reasons, either upon request of the third-country national concerned or acting ex officio, where deemed necessary.

PE658.738v01-00 66/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

reasons, either upon request of the third-country national concerned or acting ex officio, where deemed necessary. Such decisions should, as a rule, be taken within 48 hours. Where justified by the complexity of the case, judicial authorities should take such decision without undue delay.

Such decisions should be taken without undue delay.

Or. en





(19) In cases of a subsequent return decision, for instance following the final rejection of a subsequent application for international protection, the judicial authorities should be able to suspend the enforcement of a return decision in individual cases for other reasons, either upon request of the third-country national concerned or acting ex officio, where deemed necessary. Such decisions should be taken without undue delay.

Or. it

Justification

The right of suspension should also be guaranteed following subsequent return decisions. This amendment is linked to Article 16.

Amendment 224Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Michal Šimečka

AM\1214327EN.docx 67/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




(19) In cases where judicial authorities have fully assessed the principle of non-refoulement and have found that this principle does not risk to be breached, appeals against a return decision should not have an automatic suspensive effect. The judicial authorities should be able to temporarily suspend the enforcement of a return decision in individual cases for other reasons, either upon request of the third-country national concerned or acting ex officio, where deemed necessary. Such decisions should, as a rule, be taken within 48 hours. Where justified by the complexity of the case, judicial authorities should take such decision without undue delay.

Or. en

Justification

Given the irreversibility of the fundamental rights challenges during and after return, appeals should have suspensive effect unless its clearly established that the absolute prohibition of refoulement is not at stake. Judicial authorities should be given independence in determining when it is necessary to suspend the enforcement of a return decision.

Amendment 225Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod



(19) In cases where the principle of non-refoulement is not at stake, appeals against a return decision should not have an automatic suspensive effect. The judicial authorities should be able to

(19) Appeals against a return decision should not have an automatic suspensive effect. The judicial authorities should be able to temporarily suspend the enforcement of a return decision in

PE658.738v01-00 68/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

temporarily suspend the enforcement of a return decision in individual cases for other reasons, either upon request of the third-country national concerned or acting ex officio, where deemed necessary. Such decisions should, as a rule, be taken within 48 hours. Where justified by the complexity of the case, judicial authorities should take such decision without undue delay.

individual cases for other reasons, either upon request of the third-country national concerned or acting ex officio, where deemed necessary. Such decisions should, as a rule, be taken within 48 hours. Where justified by the complexity of the case, judicial authorities should take such decision without undue delay.

Or. fr

Justification





(19a) National application of the rules on the provisions of this Directive related to appeals and suspensive effect should comply with the right to an effective remedy as provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Or. fr




(20) To improve the effectiveness of deleted

AM\1214327EN.docx 69/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

return procedures and avoid unnecessary delays, without negatively affecting the rights of the third-country nationals concerned, the enforcement of the return decision should not be automatically suspended in cases where the assessment of the risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement already took place and judicial remedy was effectively exercised as part of the asylum procedure carried out prior to the issuing of the related return decision against which the appeal is lodged, unless the situation of the third-country national concerned would have significantly changed since.

Or. en




(20) To improve the effectiveness of return procedures and avoid unnecessary delays, without negatively affecting the rights of the third-country nationals concerned, the enforcement of the return decision should not be automatically suspended in cases where the assessment of the risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement already took place and judicial remedy was effectively exercised as part of the asylum procedure carried out prior to the issuing of the related return decision against which the appeal is lodged, unless the situation of the third-country national concerned would have significantly changed since.

deleted

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 70/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Justification

This amendment is linked to Article 16. The assessment of the risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement is not always done. Moreover, the asylum procedure is not linked to the return procedure. It's necessary to have two different procedures and to protect safeguards in both.





(20) To improve the effectiveness of return procedures and avoid unnecessary delays, without negatively affecting the rights of the third-country nationals concerned, the enforcement of the return decision should not be automatically suspended in cases where the assessment of the risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement already took place or judicial remedy was effectively exercised.

Or. nl

Justification

The assessment of a risk of breaching the principle of non-refoulement is considered throughout the asylum process. If a judicial remedy is exercised, that risk has already been assessed.



AM\1214327EN.docx 71/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



(20) To improve the effectiveness of return procedures and avoid unnecessary delays, without negatively affecting the rights of the third-country nationals concerned, the enforcement of the return decision should not be automatically suspended in cases where the assessment of the risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement already took place and judicial remedy was effectively exercised as part of the asylum procedure carried out prior to the issuing of the related return decision against which the appeal is lodged.

Or. fr





(20) To improve the effectiveness of return procedures and avoid unnecessary delays, without negatively affecting the rights of the third-country nationals concerned, the enforcement of the return decision should not be automatically suspended in cases where the judicial remedy was effectively exercised as part of the asylum procedure carried out prior to the issuing of the related return decision against which the appeal is lodged, unless the situation of the third-country national concerned would have significantly changed since.

PE658.738v01-00 72/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Or. fr

Justification


Amendment 232Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Michal Šimečka




(20) To improve the effectiveness of return procedures and avoid unnecessary delays, without negatively affecting the rights of the third-country nationals concerned, the enforcement of the return decision should not be automatically suspended in cases where the full assessment of the risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement under European and international law already took place and judicial remedy was effectively exercised as part of the asylum procedure carried out prior to the issuing of the related return decision against which the appeal is lodged, unless the situation of the third-country national concerned would have changed since.

Or. en

Justification

Only if the full scope of the prohibition of refoulement has been found can the enforcement of the return decision be suspended. The introduction of the requirement of ‘significant change' places too high of a burden on the judicial authorities and risks that individual cases are not properly assessed, thereby producing potential irreversible violations of non-refoulement.


AM\1214327EN.docx 73/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



(21) The necessary legal aid should be made available , upon request, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish a list of instances where legal aid is to be considered necessary.

(21) The necessary legal aid should be made available, free of charge, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish legal aid.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is related to article 7. It is one of the most important component of access to information and rights for third country nationals.




(21) The necessary legal aid should be made available, upon request, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish a list of instances where legal aid is to be considered necessary.

(21) The necessary legal aid should be made available, upon express request, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish a list of instances where legal aid is to be considered necessary.

Or. fr




(21) The necessary legal aid should be (21) The necessary legal aid should be

PE658.738v01-00 74/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

made available, upon request, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish a list of instances where legal aid is to be considered necessary.

made available free of charge, upon request, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish a list of instances where legal aid is to be considered necessary.

Or. it




(21) The necessary legal aid should be made available , upon request, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish a list of instances where legal aid is to be considered necessary.

(21) Legal aid should be made available, free of charge, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish the modalities in order to access legal aid.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 40 relating to measures needed in order to ensure the effective implementation of the directive and to Article 7 providing for third-country nationals' right to be informed during return procedures and Article 14 relating to return management.




(22) The situation of third-country nationals who are staying illegally but who cannot yet be removed should be addressed. Their basic conditions of subsistence should be defined according to

(22) Third-country nationals who are staying illegally but who cannot yet be removed should be kept in secure detention awaiting repatriation, so that their basic conditions of subsistence can be

AM\1214327EN.docx 75/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

national legislation. In order to be able to demonstrate their specific situation in the event of administrative controls or checks, such persons should be provided with written confirmation of their situation. Member States should enjoy wide discretion concerning the form and format of the written confirmation and should also be able to include it in decisions related to return adopted under this Directive.

met, and the asylum system can be run fairly and efficiently.

Or. nl

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to recital 18, which states that applicants awaiting the outcome of their appeals must be securely detained.




(22) The situation of third-country nationals who are staying illegally but who cannot yet be removed should be addressed. Their basic conditions of subsistence should be defined according to national legislation. In order to be able to demonstrate their specific situation in the event of administrative controls or checks, such persons should be provided with written confirmation of their situation. Member States should enjoy wide discretion concerning the form and format of the written confirmation and should also be able to include it in decisions related to return adopted under this Directive.

(22) The situation of third-country nationals who are staying irregularly should be addressed in any event. Their adequate and dignified conditions of subsistence should be defined according to national legislation while Member States should look into the possibility to regularise them based on their existing ties to the Member State. In order to be able to demonstrate their specific situation in the event of administrative controls or checks, such persons should be provided with written confirmation of their situation. Member States should enjoy wide discretion concerning the form and format of the written confirmation and should also be able to include it in decisions related to return adopted under this Directive.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 76/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 4.




(22) The situation of third-country nationals who are staying illegally but who cannot yet be removed should be addressed. Their basic conditions of subsistence should be defined according to national legislation. In order to be able to demonstrate their specific situation in the event of administrative controls or checks, such persons should be provided with written confirmation of their situation. Member States should enjoy wide discretion concerning the form and format of the written confirmation and should also be able to include it in decisions related to return adopted under this Directive.

(22) The situation of third-country nationals who are staying irregularly but who cannot yet be removed should be addressed. Their basic conditions of subsistence should be defined according to national legislation. In order to be able to demonstrate their specific situation in the event of administrative controls or checks, such persons should be provided with written confirmation of their situation. Member States should enjoy wide discretion concerning the form and format of the written confirmation and should also be able to include it in decisions related to return adopted under this Directive.

Or. en

Justification

The word "illegal" is not considered as relevant in the context of migration. It will be replaced in the whole text by "irregular". International bodies including the United Nations General Assembly and International Organization for Migration have all recommended to use instead the terms “irregular” or “undocumented”.




(23) The use of coercive measures (23) The use of coercive measures

AM\1214327EN.docx 77/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

should be expressly subject to the principles of proportionality and effectiveness with regard to the means used and objectives pursued. Minimum safeguards for the conduct of forced return should be established, taking into account Council Decision 2004/573/EC13 . Member States should be able to rely on various possibilities to monitor forced return.

should be banned. If Member States adopt such measures, they should be expressly subject to the principles of proportionality and necessity.

_________________13 Council Decision 2004/573/EC of 29 April 2004 on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of two or more Member States, of third-country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 28).

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments to recital 4.




(24) The effects of national return measures should be given a European dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all the Member States. The length of the entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case and should not normally exceed five years. In this context, particular account should be taken of the fact that the third-country national concerned has already been the subject of more than one return decision

deleted

PE658.738v01-00 78/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

or removal order or has entered the territory of a Member State during an entry ban.

Or. en

Justification





(24) The effects of national return measures should be given a European dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all the Member States. The length of the entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case and should not normally exceed five years. In this context, particular account should be taken of the fact that the third-country national concerned has already been the subject of more than one return decision or removal order or has entered the territory of a Member State during an entry ban.

(24) The effects of national return measures should be given a European dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all the Member States. The length of the entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case, with a minimum duration of 20 years. In this context, particular account should be taken of aggravating circumstances, i.e. that the third-country national concerned has already been the subject of more than one return decision or removal order or has entered the territory of a Member State during an entry ban.

Or. nl

Justification

This amendment is linked to recital 14 on the reintegration of third-country nationals. Preventing second or third attempts in close succession to the first aids reintegration.


AM\1214327EN.docx 79/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



(24) The effects of national return measures should be given a European dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all the Member States. The length of the entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case and should not normally exceed five years. In this context, particular account should be taken of the fact that the third-country national concerned has already been the subject of more than one return decision or removal order or has entered the territory of a Member State during an entry ban.

(24) The effects of national return measures should be given a European dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all the Member States. The length of the entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case and should not normally exceed 10 years. In this context, particular account should be taken of the fact that the third-country national concerned has already been the subject of more than one return decision or removal order or has entered the territory of a Member State during an entry ban.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment follows from Amendment 1, designed to put in place a more balanced European migration policy.




(25) When an illegally staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it may be appropriate to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration. When justified, following an individual assessment and in application of the principle of proportionality, an entry ban may be imposed by the competent authority without issuing a

deleted

PE658.738v01-00 80/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

return decision in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third-country national concerned.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur doesn't see the relevance of this amendment. Punish people who are voluntary leaving the EU seems counterproductive. This is linked to the amendment on article 13.

Amendment 245Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Anna Júlia Donáth



(25) When an illegally staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it may be appropriate to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration. When justified, following an individual assessment and in application of the principle of proportionality, an entry ban may be imposed by the competent authority without issuing a return decision in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third-country national concerned.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Such a potential entry ban at exit could undermine the willingness of irregularly staying third country nationals to leave voluntarily. They could actually be less willing to depart if they know there is a risk of an entry ban, with all its consequences.


AM\1214327EN.docx 81/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




(25) Entry bans should never be imposed for the sole reasons of the irregular stay of the person.

Or. en

Amendment 247Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod, Annalisa Tardino




(25) When an illegally staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it is necessary to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration. An entry ban shall be imposed by the competent authority without issuing a return decision in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third-country national concerned.

PE658.738v01-00 82/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Or. fr





(25) When an illegally staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it may be appropriate to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration. When justified, an entry ban may be imposed by the competent authority without issuing a return decision in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third-country national concerned.

Or. fr

Amendment 249Milan Uhrík



(25) When an illegally staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it may be appropriate to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration. When justified, following an individual assessment and in application of the principle of proportionality, an entry ban may be imposed by the competent authority without issuing a return decision

(25) When an illegally staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, an entry ban will be imposed on them in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration. When justified, following an individual assessment and in application of the principle of proportionality, an entry ban may be imposed by the competent authority without issuing a return decision

AM\1214327EN.docx 83/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third-country national concerned.

in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third-country national concerned.

Or. sk




(27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be subject to the principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued. Detention is justified only to prepare the return or carry out the removal process and if the application of less coercive measures would not be sufficient.

(27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be considered a measure of last resort and subject to the principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued. Preference should be given to alternatives to detention. The detention of unaccompanied minors or families with minors should never be possible. Detention is justified only to prepare the return or carry out the removal process and if the application of less coercive measures would not be sufficient.

Or. it

Justification

This amendment is needed because it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28, 29 and 30 and to Articles 18, 19 and 20 of this Directive.




(27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be subject to the

(27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be subject to the

PE658.738v01-00 84/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued. Detention is justified only to prepare the return or carry out the removal process and if the application of less coercive measures would not be sufficient.

principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued. However, in view of the illegal situation of the individuals concerned by return, detention must always remain an instrument available to Member States.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment is necessary to ensure consistency with the amendments to Article 18 – paragraph 5 and Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2.





(27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be limited, always used at last resort and subject to the principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued. Detention is justified only to prepare the return or carry out the removal process and if the application of less coercive measures would not be sufficient.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is related to Article 18. Detention should never be automatic, especially as it has been proven that it is more harmful and less efficient.



AM\1214327EN.docx 85/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



(27) Deprivation of liberty should be avoided and in any case never be applied in closed spaces. If a Member State chooses to implement a return policy, alternatives to detention, in particular non-custodial, engagement-based models in the community, should always be implemented.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 18 on detention, to recital 28 and Article 18.




(28) Detention should be imposed, following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

(28) In order to guarantee that Member States choosing to implement a return policy abide by fundamental rights safeguards, this Directive should oblige these Member States to provide for alternatives to detention and set out exhaustive and rights-based grounds for the exceptional detention of a third-country national a part of a return procedure and systematically exclude detention in closed spaces. Detention should never be imposed on vulnerable persons. As detention has a particularly detrimental physical and psychological impact on children, whether unaccompanied or separated or with their families, they should not be detained nor should their parents and customary primary caregivers accompanying the children. Detention is never in the best

PE658.738v01-00 86/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

interests of the child.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 27 and 40 and Article 18.





(28) Detention should be imposed, following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security. Children, both when unaccompanied or separated and with their families, shall not be detained and Member States shall provide appropriate alternatives to detention in line with the New York Declaration for Refugee sand Migrant of 19 September 2016.

Or. en




(28) Detention should be imposed, (28) Detention should be imposed,

AM\1214327EN.docx 87/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security, especially if belonging to terrorist or serious crime networks. This should also apply to minors between the age of 16 and 18, who have repeatedly committed criminal offences, thereby proving their unwillingness to abide by the law.

Or. en

Amendment 257Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen




(28) Detention may be imposed, following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process.

Or. en

Justification

Detention should not become mandatory for Member States to impose, although it should be possible to do so. As it is costly, both to the Member States and to the third country national, financially and in terms of fundamental rights, the use of detention should not be default option. The new ground introduced by the Commission is not specific enough and can be properly dealt with under current criminal and administrative law

Amendment 258

PE658.738v01-00 88/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa




(28) Detention should be imposed, following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, or when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. en

Justification

According to NGOs and international organizations, it's absolutely not proven that the longer the detention is, the higher the rates of effective returns are. This amendment is linked to Article 18.




(28) Detention should be imposed, following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

(28) Detention should be imposed, following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding within the meaning of this Directive or when the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. it

Amendment 260

AM\1214327EN.docx 89/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Nadine Morano (PPE)




(28) Detention should always be imposed, subject to an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. fr





(28) Detention should be imposed where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national does not cooperate with all the stages in the removal process, avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. fr

Justification

The absence of national borders within the Schengen area makes it necessary to ensure the compulsory detention of third-country nationals who do not fully cooperate in order to prevent unauthorised secondary movements to other Member States and to promote the effectiveness of return decisions. This will also act as a deterrent, discouraging those considering illegal immigration, as they will be aware that they will be systematically

PE658.738v01-00 90/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

detained.





(28) Detention should be the default option, especially where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. nl

Justification

Detention should be the rule, and that rule should be applied especially when the applicant concerned is non-cooperative.




(28a) With a view to combating the trafficking and fraudulent acknowledgement of children, where the national law provides for minors to be detained, the best interests of the child cannot, in themselves, provide grounds for not placing children in detention, whether this relates to the children themselves, their families or their relatives.

AM\1214327EN.docx 91/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Or. fr




(29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention between three and six months, which may be prolonged, should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.

(29) Given that detention could be ordered by an administrative or a judicial authority and could only be justified when there is an evidence-based risk of absconding following an individual assessment, periodic judicial reviews of the necessity and proportionality of the detention of a third-country national in each individual case should be carried out by a judicial authority within a reasonable time. The maximum detention period should be two weeks, which may be prolonged, no more than one time, for a further period of up to two weeks, should this prove necessary and proportionate in order to complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is rights-based and not arbitrary.

Or. en

Amendment 265Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Fabienne Keller



(29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of

(29) A maximum period of detention of three months should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to complete

PE658.738v01-00 92/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

return, a maximum period of detention between three and six months, which may be prolonged, should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.

the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress. This period may not be prolonged, except for twice for a period of up to three months each, each after judicial review, and only in cases where, regardless of all the reasonable efforts by the Member State authorities, the removal operation is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned.

Or. en

Justification

As various sources, including the EP impact assessment, have shown, ever-longer detention periods have a limited impact on returns effectively happening. In light of the severe risks to human rights violations, prolonged detention can be imposed, but only when accompanied by continued judicial review.





(29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention between three and six months, which may be prolonged, should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures successfully.

AM\1214327EN.docx 93/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Or. fr

Justification






(29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention between three and six months, which may be prolonged once only for a maximum of a further six months, should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.

Or. it




(29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention between three and six months, which may be prolonged, should be established in

(29) The maximum period of detention should be two months, which may be prolonged, no more than two times, which means a maximum period of six months, in order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures

PE658.738v01-00 94/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.

successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.

Or. en

Justification

According to NGOs and international organizations, it's absolutely not proven that the longer the detention is, the higher the rates of effective returns are. This amendment is linked to Article 18.





(29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention between three and twelve months, which may be prolonged, should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.

Or. en



AM\1214327EN.docx 95/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



(29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention between three and twelve months, which may be prolonged, should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.

Or. fr




(29a) Where the order to detain a third-country national has been issued in an administrative procedure, the court or tribunal responsible for assessing the lawfulness of that decision may take into account all relevant facts, evidence and observations that may be submitted by the parties concerned.

Or. fr



PE658.738v01-00 96/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


(30) This Directive should not preclude Member States from laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties and criminal penalties, including imprisonment, in relation to the infringements of migration rules, provided that such penalties are compatible with the objectives of this Directive, do not compromise the application of this Directive and are in full respect of fundamental rights.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is out of scope.





deleted

Or. en


AM\1214327EN.docx 97/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




deleted

Or. it





(30) This Directive encourages Member States to lay down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties and criminal penalties, including imprisonment, in relation to the infringements of migration rules, especially with regard to convicted terrorists, organised crime offenders and offenders of severe crimes such as rape, provided that such penalties are compatible with the objectives of this Directive, do not compromise the application of this Directive and are in full respect of fundamental rights.

Or. en


PE658.738v01-00 98/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




(30) This Directive does not have the effect of precluding Member States from laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties and criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, in relation to the infringements of migration rules, provided that such penalties are compatible with the objectives of this Directive, do not compromise the application of this Directive and are in full respect of fundamental rights.

Or. fr




(31) Third-country nationals in detention should be treated in a humane and dignified manner with respect for their fundamental rights and in compliance with international and national law. Without prejudice to the initial apprehension by law-enforcement authorities, regulated by national legislation, detention should, as a rule, take place in specialised detention facilities.

(31) Third-country nationals should be treated in a humane and dignified manner with respect for their fundamental rights and in compliance with international and national law. Without prejudice to the initial apprehension by law-enforcement authorities, regulated by national legislation, third-country nationals who are found in an irregular situation should, as a rule, be hosted in an open reception facility while Member States are looking into the possibility to regularise their situation based on their existing ties to the Member State.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 99/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to an amendment tabled to recital 4.




(31) Third-country nationals in detention should be treated in a humane and dignified manner with respect for their fundamental rights and in compliance with international and national law. Without prejudice to the initial apprehension by law-enforcement authorities, regulated by national legislation, detention should, as a rule, take place in specialised detention facilities.

(31) Third-country nationals in detention should be treated in an equally humane and dignified manner in all the EU Member States with respect for their fundamental rights and in compliance with international and national law. Without prejudice to the initial apprehension by law-enforcement authorities, regulated by national legislation, detention should, as a rule, take place in specialised detention facilities.

Or. ro




(31a) Children's rights apply to both cases involving unaccompanied and separated children and children within families. In the case of families, Member States should respect and protect the rights of each child within the family and his or her right to private and family life, and should also take into full account the safety of the child within the family. Appropriate care and accommodation arrangements that enable children and families to live together in communities

PE658.738v01-00 100/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

should be implemented. Children should not be separated from their parents. In keeping with the principles of family unity and the bests interests of the child, families should be kept together unless the child's safety is at risk. Forced return of children should never occur. Children and families should be provided with documentation indicating that they are in an ongoing procedure and not subject to detention. Children and parents should be ensured access to education, health care and other services.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40. This amendment is also strictly linked to changes proposed to Article 12 on return and removals of minors and Article 20 on detention of minors and their families.




(31a) In view of the fact that third-country nationals detained for the purpose of removal are not detained as persons suspected of criminal activities or convicted of criminal offences, they should not be accommodated together with ordinary prisoners. It is also possible to ensure this separation by accommodating these third-country nationals in sections of penal institutions that are set aside and used solely for that purpose.

Or. fr

AM\1214327EN.docx 101/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification

This amendment follows from recital 4 and emphasises the specific nature of third-country nationals in an irregular situation. It is also closely linked to Article 19(1).

Amendment 281Monika Hohlmeier



(31a) Member States' obligation to respect and protect the rights of children and families may also include the option to reunite children and their parents or vice versa in third countries outside the European Union

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveRecital 31 b (new)


(31b) An independent and qualifies guardian with the necessary expertise and training to ensure the best interests of the child are fully taken into consideration should be appointed to assist unaccompanied and separated children. To that end, the guardian should be involved in the procedure to find a durable solution for the child in his or her best interests.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and

PE658.738v01-00 102/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

40. This amendment is also strictly linked to changes proposed to Article 12 on return and removal of minors and Article 20 on detention of minors and their families.




(32) Without prejudice to the possibility for Member States not to apply this Directive with regard to the cases referred to in Article 2(2)(a), if a border procedure is applied in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], a specific border procedure should follow for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals whose application for international protection under that asylum border procedure has been rejected in order to ensure direct complementarity between the asylum and return border procedures and prevent gaps between the procedures. In such cases, it is necessary to establish specific rules that ensure the coherence and synergy between the two procedures and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the whole process.

deleted

Or. it




(32) Without prejudice to the possibility for Member States not to apply this Directive with regard to the cases referred

deleted

AM\1214327EN.docx 103/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

to in Article 2(2)(a), when a border procedure is applied in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], a specific border procedure should follow for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals whose application for international protection under that asylum border procedure has been rejected in order to ensure direct complementarity between the asylum and return border procedures and prevent gaps between the procedures. In such cases, it is necessary to establish specific rules that ensure the coherence and synergy between the two procedures and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the whole process.

Or. en

Amendment 285Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache



(32) Without prejudice to the possibility for Member States not to apply this Directive with regard to the cases referred to in Article 2(2)(a), when a border procedure is applied in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], a specific border procedure should follow for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals whose application for international protection under that asylum border procedure has been rejected in order to ensure direct complementarity between the asylum and return border procedures and prevent gaps between the procedures. In such cases, it is necessary to establish specific rules that ensure the coherence and synergy between the two procedures

deleted

PE658.738v01-00 104/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the whole process.

Or. en

Justification

In line with the proposed deletion of Art 22, the border procedure as proposed by the Commission in this recast cannot be properly legislated on here without a view on the Asylum Procedures Regulation. On top, the border procedure as proposed foresees limited rights and risks undermining the actual safeguards foreseen in this Directive.




(32) Without prejudice to the possibility for Member States not to apply this Directive with regard to the cases referred to in Article 2(2)(a), when a border procedure is applied in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], a specific border procedure should follow for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals whose application for international protection under that asylum border procedure has been rejected in order to ensure direct complementarity between the asylum and return border procedures and prevent gaps between the procedures. In such cases, it is necessary to establish specific rules that ensure the coherence and synergy between the two procedures and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the whole process.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Consistency is needed. Clarity and coherence are the best tools to avoid violations of human rights. The parallel regime of article 2 (2)(a) goes against that. Moreover, this amendment is

AM\1214327EN.docx 105/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

related to Article 22 and without a decision on this issue in APR, which codifies all the provisions on the border procedure and especially the safeguards, it is nearly impossible to amend Article 22, without risking having breaches on fundamental rights.




(32) Without prejudice to the possibility for Member States not to apply this Directive with regard to the cases referred to in Article 2(2)(a), if a border procedure is applied in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], a specific border procedure should follow for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals whose application for international protection under that asylum border procedure has been rejected in order to ensure direct complementarity between the asylum and return border procedures and prevent gaps between the procedures. In such cases, it is necessary to establish specific rules that ensure the coherence and synergy between the two procedures and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the whole process.

(32) Without prejudice to the possibility for Member States not to apply this Directive with regard to the cases referred to in Article 2(2)(a), if a border procedure is applied in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], a specific border procedure should follow for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals whose application for international protection under that asylum border procedure has been rejected in order to ensure direct complementarity between the asylum and return border procedures and prevent gaps between the procedures. In such cases, it is necessary to establish specific rules that ensure the coherence and synergy between the two procedures and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the whole process. Member States should be able to rely on appropriate Union funding to carry out the necessary activities for the border procedure.

Or. fr



PE658.738v01-00 106/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


(33) To ensure effective return in the context of the border procedure, a period for voluntary departure should not be granted. However, a period for voluntary departure should be granted to third-country nationals who hold a valid travel document and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. In such cases, to prevent absconding, third-country nationals should hand over the travel document to the competent authority until their departure.

deleted

Or. it





deleted

Or. en

Amendment 290

AM\1214327EN.docx 107/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache




deleted

Or. en

Justification





(33) To ensure effective return in the context of the border procedure, a period for voluntary departure should not be granted. However, a period for voluntary departure should be granted to third-country nationals who hold a valid travel document and cooperate with the

(33) A period for voluntary departure should be granted to third-country nationals who hold a valid travel document and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. In such cases, to prevent absconding, third-country

PE658.738v01-00 108/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. In such cases, to prevent absconding, third-country nationals should hand over the travel document to the competent authority until their departure.

nationals should hand over the travel document to the competent authority until their departure.

Or. en





(33) A period for voluntary departure may in exceptional circumstances be granted to third-country nationals who hold a valid travel document and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. In such cases, to prevent absconding, third-country nationals should hand over the travel document to the competent authority until their departure.

Or. nl

Justification

Given the complete failure of current voluntary return policies, forced return should be the default option.



AM\1214327EN.docx 109/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



(33) To ensure effective return in the context of the border procedure, this procedure should not result in a period for voluntary departure being granted. However, a period for voluntary departure may be granted to third-country nationals who hold a valid travel document and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. In such cases, to prevent absconding, third-country nationals should hand over the travel document to the competent authority until their departure.

Or. fr





(33) To ensure effective return in the context of the border procedure, a period for voluntary departure should not be granted. However, a period for voluntary departure may be granted to third-country nationals who hold a valid travel document and cooperate fully with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. In such cases, to prevent absconding, third-country nationals should hand over the travel document to the competent authority until their departure.

Or. en


PE658.738v01-00 110/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN



(34) For a rapid treatment of the case, a maximum time limit is to be granted to appeal against a return decision following a decision rejecting an application for international protection adopted under the border procedure and which became final.

deleted

Or. it





deleted

Or. en

Justification




AM\1214327EN.docx 111/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Recital 34



deleted

Or. en





deleted

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is linked to the deletion of Article 22.




(34) For a rapid treatment of the case, a maximum time limit is to be granted to

(34) For a rapid and effective treatment of the case, a maximum time limit is to be

PE658.738v01-00 112/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

appeal against a return decision following a decision rejecting an application for international protection adopted under the border procedure and which became final.

granted to appeal against a return decision following a decision rejecting an application for international protection adopted under the border procedure and which became final.

Or. fr





(34) For a rapid treatment of the case, a maximum time limit is to be granted to appeal against a return decision at the latest together with a decision rejecting an application for international protection adopted under the border procedure.

Or. nl

Justification

Only one appeal should remain against a single administrative act that comprises both a return decision and a decision rejecting an application for international protection. The notion of ‘whether or not a decision is final' is superfluous and creates confusion within the procedure.




(35) An appeal against a return decision taken in the context of the border procedure should have an automatic suspensive effect in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-

deleted

AM\1214327EN.docx 113/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

refoulement, there has been a significant change in the situation of the third-country national concerned since the adoption under the asylum border procedure of the decision rejecting his or her application for international protection, or if no judicial remedy was effectively exercised against the decision rejecting his or her application for international protection adopted under the asylum border procedure.

Or. it




(35) An appeal against a return decision taken in the context of the border procedure should have an automatic suspensive effect in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement, there has been a significant change in the situation of the third-country national concerned since the adoption under the asylum border procedure of the decision rejecting his or her application for international protection, or if no judicial remedy was effectively exercised against the decision rejecting his or her application for international protection adopted under the asylum border procedure.

deleted

Or. nl

Justification

As stated earlier, the return decision and the decision to refuse his or her application must form part of one and the same administrative act. This makes the main considerations of this recital superfluous. The principle of non-refoulement has already been sufficiently confirmed in this text.

PE658.738v01-00 114/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN





deleted

Or. fr




(35) An appeal against a return decision taken in the context of the border procedure should have an automatic suspensive effect in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement, there has been a significant change in the situation of the third-country national concerned since the adoption under the asylum border procedure of the decision rejecting his or

deleted

AM\1214327EN.docx 115/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

her application for international protection, or if no judicial remedy was effectively exercised against the decision rejecting his or her application for international protection adopted under the asylum border procedure.

Or. en

Justification






deleted

Or. en



PE658.738v01-00 116/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Recital 35



deleted

Or. en

Justification





(35) An appeal against a return decision taken in the context of the border procedure should have an automatic suspensive effect in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement, there has been a significant change in the situation of the third-country national concerned since the

(35) An appeal against a return decision taken in the context of the border procedure should not have an automatic suspensive effect.

AM\1214327EN.docx 117/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

adoption under the asylum border procedure of the decision rejecting his or her application for international protection, or if no judicial remedy was effectively exercised against the decision rejecting his or her application for international protection adopted under the asylum border procedure.

Or. fr




(36) It is necessary and proportionate to ensure that a third country national who was already detained during the examination of his or her application for international protection as part of the asylum border procedure may be kept in detention in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, once his or her application has been rejected. To avoid that a third country national is automatically released from detention and allowed entry into the territory of the Member State despite having been denied a right to stay, a limited period of time is needed in order to try to enforce the return decision issued at the border. The third-country national concerned may be detained in the context of the border procedure for a maximum period of four months and as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence. That period of detention should be without prejudice to other periods of detention established by this Directive. Where it has not been possible to enforce return by the end of the former period, further detention of the third-country national

deleted

PE658.738v01-00 118/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

may be ordered under another provision of this Directive and for the duration provided for therein.

Or. it




(36) It is necessary and proportionate to ensure that a third country national who was already detained during the examination of his or her application for international protection as part of the asylum border procedure may be kept in detention in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, once his or her application has been rejected. To avoid that a third country national is automatically released from detention and allowed entry into the territory of the Member State despite having been denied a right to stay, a limited period of time is needed in order to try to enforce the return decision issued at the border. The third-country national concerned may be detained in the context of the border procedure for a maximum period of four months and as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence. That period of detention should be without prejudice to other periods of detention established by this Directive. Where it has not been possible to enforce return by the end of the former period, further detention of the third-country national may be ordered under another provision of this Directive and for the duration provided for therein.

deleted

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 119/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification






deleted

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 120/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN





deleted

Or. en

Justification


AM\1214327EN.docx 121/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




(37) Member States should have rapid access to information on return decisions and entry bans issued by other Member States. Such access should take place in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/…14 [Regulation on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third country nationals] and Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council15 , including to facilitate mutual recognition of these decisions amongst competent authorities, by virtue of Council Directive 2001/40/EC16 and Council Decision 2004/191/EC17 .

deleted

_________________14 [Regulation on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third country nationals] (OJ L …).15 Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (OJ L 381, 28.12.2006, p. 4).16 Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals (OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p. 34).17 Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals, OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p. 34; and Council Decision 2004/191/EC of

PE658.738v01-00 122/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

23 February 2004 setting out the criteria and practical arrangements for the compensation of the financial imbalances resulting from the application of Directive 2001/40/EC on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals (OJ L 60, 27.2.2004, p. 55).

Or. en




(37a) Mutual recognition of return decisions may help to ensure a more effective implementation of returns. Member States should make use of all available means of cooperation and exchanges of information for this purpose. The Commission should assess the EU’s returns legislation with a view to achieving a more uniform and consistent implementation of return decisions, and reducing the administrative burden on the national authorities, notably through mutual recognition of return decisions; it should also consider submitting a legislative proposal in that respect.

Or. fr




AM\1214327EN.docx 123/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

(38) Establishing return management systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that are relevant for monitoring and following up on individual cases. To operate efficiently and in order to significantly reduce the administrative burden, such national return systems should be linked to the Schengen Information System to facilitate and speed up the entering of return-related information, as well as to the central system established by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation].

deleted

Or. en




(38) Establishing return management systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that are relevant for monitoring and following up on individual cases. To operate efficiently and in order to significantly reduce the administrative burden, such national return systems should be linked to the Schengen Information System to facilitate and speed up the entering of return-related information, as well as to the central system established by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/…

(38) Establishing return management systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that are relevant for monitoring and following up on individual cases. To operate efficiently and in order to significantly reduce the administrative burden, such national return systems should be linked to the Schengen Information System, to Eurodac and to all the databases used to identify third country nationals, to facilitate and speed up the entering of return-related information, as well as to the central system established by the European

PE658.738v01-00 124/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

[EBCG Regulation]. Border and Coast Guard Agency in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation].

Or. fr




(38) Establishing return management systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that are relevant for monitoring and following up on individual cases. To operate efficiently and in order to significantly reduce the administrative burden, such national return systems should be linked to the Schengen Information System to facilitate and speed up the entering of return-related information, as well as to the central system established by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation].

(38) Establishing return management systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that are relevant for monitoring and following up on individual cases. To operate efficiently and in order to significantly reduce the administrative burden, such national return systems should be linked to the Schengen Information System to facilitate and speed up the entering of return-related information, as well as to the central system established by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation] as well as other relevant central information systems.

Or. en




(38) Establishing return management (38) Establishing return management

AM\1214327EN.docx 125/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that are relevant for monitoring and following up on individual cases. To operate efficiently and in order to significantly reduce the administrative burden, such national return systems should be linked to the Schengen Information System to facilitate and speed up the entering of return-related information, as well as to the central system established by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation].

systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that are relevant and complete for monitoring and following up on individual cases. To operate efficiently and in order to significantly reduce the administrative burden, such national return systems should be linked to the Schengen Information System to facilitate and speed up the entering of return-related information, as well as to the central system established by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation].

Or. fr




(38a) When, following a best interest assessment, it is established that return would be in a child's best interest, Member States should ensure that specific safeguards are in place for separated or unaccompanied children returning to a third country. Where family has been traced, Member States should ensure that child-protection actors, through appropriate case management, whether family reunification is in the child's best interest, whether the family is willing and able to receive the child and provide suitable immediate care, and take into account both the child's and the family's views on reunification. Family tracing should only be done by qualified actors and following a best interest's assessment

PE658.738v01-00 126/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

to ensure restoring contact would not be contrary to a child's best interest. Where tracing is unsuccessful or where family reunification is not found not to be in the child's best interest, return should not occur.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40. This amendment is also strictly linked to changes made to Article 12 and 20.




(38a) EU data protection legislation is applicable to any processing of personal data in the return management systems of the Member states, including the communication of this data to the central system operated by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. Return management systems should respect the principles of lawfulness, fairness and transparency; purpose limitation; data minimisation; accuracy; storage limitation; integrity and confidentiality; and accountability of the data controller. The national return management systems should not contain any information obtained during the personal interview carried out on the basis of Article 15 of Directive 2013/32/EU (Asylum Procedures Directive).

Or. en

Justification

The return management systems should respect the current European regulation regarding

AM\1214327EN.docx 127/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

the data protection. This amendment is linked to Article 14.




(39) Cooperation between the institutions involved at all levels in the return process and the exchange and promotion of best practices, including by taking into account and regularly updating the Return Handbook to reflect legal and policy developments, should accompany the implementation of this Directive and provide European added value.

(39) Cooperation between the sovereign Member States, cooperation between the institutions involved at all levels in the return process and the exchange and promotion of best practices, including by taking into account and regularly updating the Return Handbook to reflect legal and policy developments, should accompany the implementation of this Directive.

Or. nl




(40) The Union provides financial and operational support in order to achieve an effective implementation of this Directive. Member States should make best use of the available Union financial instruments, programmes and projects in the field of return, in particular under Regulation (EU) …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund], as well as of the operational assistance by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency according to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation]. Such support should be used in particular for establishing return management systems and programmes for

(40) The Union provides financial and operational support in order to achieve an effective and fundamental rights compliant implementation of this Directive. Member States should make best use of the available Union financial instruments, programmes and projects in the field of return, in particular under Regulation (EU) …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund]. Such support should be used in particular for establishing appropriate case management programmes, protection for persons in vulnerable situations, including measures to ensure effective

PE658.738v01-00 128/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance to support the return – and where relevant the reintegration – of illegally staying third-country nationals.

protection of children in migration as well as of pregnant women and victims of trafficking, provision of information, legal aid and interpretation, development and implementation of effective non custodial engagement based alternatives to detention, independent forced returns monitoring systems, and programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance to support the return – and the reintegration – of irregularly staying third-country nationals.

Or. en

Amendment 322Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Maite Pagazaurtundúa



(40) The Union provides financial and operational support in order to achieve an effective implementation of this Directive. Member States should make best use of the available Union financial instruments, programmes and projects in the field of return, in particular under Regulation (EU) …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund], as well as of the operational assistance by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency according to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation]. Such support should be used in particular for establishing return management systems and programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance to support the return – and where relevant the reintegration – of illegally staying third-country nationals.

(40) The Union provides financial and operational support in order to achieve an effective implementation of this Directive. Member States should make best use of the available Union financial instruments, programmes and projects in the field of return, in particular under Regulation (EU) …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund], as well as of the operational assistance by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency according to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation]. Such support should be used in particular for establishing return management systems and programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance to support the return and the reintegration and post-return monitoring of irregularly staying third-country nationals.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 129/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




(40) The Union provides financial and operational support in order to achieve an effective implementation of this Directive. Member States should make best use of the available Union financial instruments, programmes and projects in the field of return, in particular under Regulation (EU) …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund], as well as of the operational assistance by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency according to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation]. Such support should be used in particular for establishing return management systems and programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance to support the return – and where relevant the reintegration – of illegally staying third-country nationals.

(40) The Union provides financial and operational support in order to achieve an effective implementation of this Directive. Member States should make best use of the available Union financial instruments, programmes and projects in the field of return, in particular under Regulation (EU) …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund], as well as of the operational assistance by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency according to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation]. Such support should be used in particular for establishing return management systems and programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance to support the sustainable return and the reintegration of irregularly staying third-country nationals.

Or. fr




(40) The Union provides financial and operational support in order to achieve an effective implementation of this Directive. Member States should make best use of the available Union financial instruments, programmes and projects in the field of

(40) The Union provides financial and operational support in order to achieve an effective implementation of this Directive. Member States should make best use of the available Union financial instruments, programmes and projects in the field of

PE658.738v01-00 130/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

return, in particular under Regulation (EU) …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund], as well as of the operational assistance by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency according to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation]. Such support should be used in particular for establishing return management systems and programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance to support the return – and where relevant the reintegration – of illegally staying third-country nationals.

return, in particular under Regulation (EU) …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund], as well as of the operational assistance by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency according to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation]. Such support should be used in particular for establishing return management systems and programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance to support the return and the reintegration of irregularly staying third-country nationals.

Or. en

Justification





(41) Since the objective of this Directive, namely to establish common rules concerning return, removal, use of coercive measures, detention and entry bans, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union . In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

(41) Since the objective of this Directive, namely to establish rights-based rules concerning return and removal cannot be sufficiently achieved by all the Member States and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union . In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary and proportionate to achieve that objective.

AM\1214327EN.docx 131/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Or. en

Justification





(42) Member States should implement this Directive without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinions, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation.

deleted

Or. nl

Justification

It is especially the case that, when assessing an asylum application, the Member State concerned should take into account all particular factors specific to the individual which may constitute a ground for persecution in the country of origin. It is therefore impossible to ask Member States not to take personal characteristics into account. The prohibition of discrimination derives from international human rights conventions and should not be repeated here.




(43) In line with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the ‘best interests of the child’ should be a primary consideration of

(43) In line with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the ‘best interests of the child’ should be a primary consideration of

PE658.738v01-00 132/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Member States when implementing this Directive. In line with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, respect for family life should be a primary consideration of Member States when implementing this Directive.

Member States when implementing this Directive. In line with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, respect for family life should be a primary consideration of Member States when implementing this Directive. However, these rights should not be abused in order to circumvent or weaken the asylum system.

Or. nl

Justification

Minors are now being used by families to force through a second asylum claim for the family on the basis of the right to family life. This system puts minors at the mercy of all the dangers of the journey. A strict application of the right to asylum is therefore also in the interests of the children, who are no longer put at risk on behalf of their parents. This amendment is linked to recital 3 on the the need to achieve effective return and recital 4 on the sovereignty of the Member States.




(44) Application of this Directive is without prejudice to the obligations resulting from the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967.

(44) Application of this Directive is without prejudice to the obligations resulting from the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967, from the 1954 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and from the 1989 United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 133/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification


Amendment 329Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto



(44) Application of this Directive is without prejudice to the obligations resulting from the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967.

(44) Application of this Directive is without prejudice to the obligations resulting from the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951.

Or. fr

Justification

The New York Protocol of 31 January 1967, and in particular Article 1(2), expands the definition of the status of refugees to a number of persons that has become completely disproportionate. In order to reform the European Union’s asylum and return policy to bring it into line with current and future challenges, this must be re-examined.




(45) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(45) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 134/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Justification





(46) The purpose of an effective implementation of the return of third-country nationals who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in the Member States, in accordance with this Directive, is an essential component of the comprehensive efforts to tackle irregular migration and represents an important reason of substantial public interest.

deleted

Or. en





(46) The purpose of an effective implementation of the return of third-country nationals who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in the Member States, in accordance with this Directive, is an essential component of the comprehensive efforts to tackle irregular migration and represents an important element of an overall approach to migration, combining more effective control of the Union’s external borders, reinforcement of external action and the internal

AM\1214327EN.docx 135/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

dimension.

Or. it





(46) The purpose of an effective and dignified implementation of the return of third-country nationals who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in the Member States, in accordance with this Directive, is one of the components of the European migration policy.

Or. en





(46) The purpose of an effective implementation of the return of third-country nationals who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in the Member States, in accordance with this Directive, is an essential component of the comprehensive efforts to tackle irregular migration, based on the principle of deterrence, and represents an important reason of substantial public interest.

PE658.738v01-00 136/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Or. fr





(46) The purpose of an effective implementation of the return of third-country nationals who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in the Member States, in accordance with this Directive, is an essential component of European Union migration policy and the fight against illegal immigration. It represents an important reason of substantial public interest.

Or. fr




(47) Member States' return authorities need to process personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return procedures and the successful enforcement of return decisions. The third countries of return are often not the subject of adequacy decisions adopted by the Commission under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , or under Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/68019 , and have often not concluded or do not intend to conclude a readmission agreement with the Union or

(47) Member States' return authorities need to process personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return procedures and the successful enforcement of return decisions. The third countries of return are often not the subject of adequacy decisions adopted by the Commission under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , and have often not concluded a readmission agreement with the Union or otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning

AM\1214327EN.docx 137/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within the meaning of the national provisions transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of the Union in cooperating with the main countries of origin of illegally staying third-country nationals subject to an obligation to return, it is not always possible to ensure such third countries systematically fulfil the obligation established by international law to readmit their own nationals. Readmission agreements, concluded or being negotiated by the Union or the Member States and providing for appropriate safeguards for the transfer of data to third countries pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or pursuant to the national provisions transposing Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, cover a limited number of such third countries. In the situation where such agreements do not exist, personal data should be transferred by Member States' competent authorities for the purposes of implementing the return operations of the Union, in line with the conditions laid down in Article 49(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in the national provisions transposing Article 38 of Directive (EU) 2016/680.

of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Readmission agreements, concluded or being negotiated by the Union or the Member States and providing for appropriate safeguards for the transfer of data to third countries pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 cover a limited number of such third countries. In the situation where such agreements do not exist, personal data should not be transferred to authorities of third countries.

_________________ _________________18 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1).

18 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1).

19 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the

PE658.738v01-00 138/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 89).

Or. en

Justification

Cooperation with third countries should only be based on official and formal agreements to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. This amendment is linked to Article 3.




(47) Member States' return authorities need to process personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return procedures and the successful enforcement of return decisions. The third countries of return are often not the subject of adequacy decisions adopted by the Commission under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , or under Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/68019 , and have often not concluded or do not intend to conclude a readmission agreement with the Union or otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within the meaning of the national provisions transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of the Union in cooperating with the main countries of origin of illegally staying third-country nationals subject to an obligation to return, it is not always possible to ensure such third countries systematically fulfil the obligation

(47) Member States' return authorities need to process personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return procedures and the successful enforcement of return decisions. The third countries of return are often not the subject of adequacy decisions adopted by the Commission under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , or under Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/68019, and have often not concluded or do not intend to conclude a readmission agreement with the Union or otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within the meaning of the national provisions transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. The Union should thus cooperate with the main countries of origin of irregularly staying third-country nationals subject to an obligation to return, to ensure such third countries systematically fulfil the obligation established by international law to readmit

AM\1214327EN.docx 139/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

established by international law to readmit their own nationals. Readmission agreements, concluded or being negotiated by the Union or the Member States and providing for appropriate safeguards for the transfer of data to third countries pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or pursuant to the national provisions transposing Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, cover a limited number of such third countries. In the situation where such agreements do not exist, personal data should be transferred by Member States' competent authorities for the purposes of implementing the return operations of the Union, in line with the conditions laid down in Article 49(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in the national provisions transposing Article 38 of Directive (EU) 2016/680.

their own nationals. Readmission agreements should therefore be concluded and negotiated by the Union, providing for appropriate safeguards for the transfer of data to third countries pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or pursuant to the national provisions transposing Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/680.



19 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 89).


Or. en

Amendment 338

PE658.738v01-00 140/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Anne-Sophie Pelletier



(47) Member States' return authorities need to process personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return procedures and the successful enforcement of return decisions. The third countries of return are often not the subject of adequacy decisions adopted by the Commission under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , or under Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/68019 , and have often not concluded or do not intend to conclude a readmission agreement with the Union or otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within the meaning of the national provisions transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of the Union in cooperating with the main countries of origin of illegally staying third-country nationals subject to an obligation to return, it is not always possible to ensure such third countries systematically fulfil the obligation established by international law to readmit their own nationals. Readmission agreements, concluded or being negotiated by the Union or the Member States and providing for appropriate safeguards for the transfer of data to third countries pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or pursuant to the national provisions transposing Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, cover a limited number of such third countries. In the situation where such agreements do not exist, personal data should be transferred by Member States' competent authorities for the purposes of implementing the return operations of the Union, in line with the conditions laid down in Article

(47) Member States' return authorities processing of personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return procedures should be in line with Article 8 of the Charter of fundamental rights and the Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in particular Article 9 (2)(g). Particular attention should be paid to ensuring the proportionality and the existence of suitable and specific measures to safeguard the fundamental rights and the interests of the data subject. Member States should avoid any contact with an asylum applicant's country of origin as long as the final decision of the application for international protection has not been taken. The third countries of return are often not the subject of adequacy decisions adopted by the Commission under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , and have often not concluded a readmission agreement with the Union or otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Readmission agreements, concluded or being negotiated by the Union or the Member States and providing for appropriate safeguards for the transfer of data to third countries pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, should include binding and enforceable data protection assurances by those third countries. In the situation where such agreements do not exist, personal data should not be transferred by Member States' competent authorities to authorities of third countries.

AM\1214327EN.docx 141/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

49(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in the national provisions transposing Article 38 of Directive (EU) 2016/680.




Or. en




(47) Member States' return authorities need to process personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return procedures and the successful enforcement of return decisions. The third countries of return are often not the subject of adequacy decisions adopted by the Commission under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18, or under Article 36 of

(47) Member States' return authorities need to process personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return procedures and the successful enforcement of return decisions. The third countries of return are often not the subject of adequacy decisions adopted by the Commission under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18, or under Article 36 of

PE658.738v01-00 142/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Directive (EU) 2016/68019, and have often not concluded or do not intend to conclude a readmission agreement with the Union or otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within the meaning of the national provisions transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of the Union in cooperating with the main countries of origin of illegally staying third-country nationals subject to an obligation to return, it is not always possible to ensure such third countries systematically fulfil the obligation established by international law to readmit their own nationals. Readmission agreements, concluded or being negotiated by the Union or the Member States and providing for appropriate safeguards for the transfer of data to third countries pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or pursuant to the national provisions transposing Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, cover a limited number of such third countries. In the situation where such agreements do not exist, personal data should be transferred by Member States' competent authorities for the purposes of implementing the return operations of the Union, in line with the conditions laid down in Article 49(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in the national provisions transposing Article 38 of Directive (EU) 2016/680.

Directive (EU) 2016/68019, and have often not concluded or do not intend to conclude a readmission agreement with the Union or otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within the meaning of the national provisions transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of the Union in cooperating with the main countries of origin of illegally staying third-country nationals subject to an obligation to return, it is not always possible to ensure such third countries systematically fulfil the obligation established by international law to readmit their own nationals. Policies involving diplomatic and economic pressure should be applied in order to encourage them to do so. Readmission agreements, concluded or being negotiated by the Union or the Member States and providing for appropriate safeguards for the transfer of data to third countries pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or pursuant to the national provisions transposing Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, cover a limited number of such third countries. In the situation where such agreements do not exist, personal data should be transferred by Member States' competent authorities for the purposes of implementing the return operations of the Union, in line with the conditions laid down in Article 49(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in the national provisions transposing Article 38 of Directive (EU) 2016/680.

_________________ _________________18 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1 p. 1.

18 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1 p. 1.

AM\1214327EN.docx 143/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

19 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89).

19 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89).

Or. fr




(54) The obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive amendment as compared to the earlier Directive. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under the earlier Directive.

deleted

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 1 – paragraph 1


This Directive sets out common standards and procedures to be applied in Member States for returning illegally staying third-

This Directive sets out standards and procedures to be applied in Member States which choose to implement a policy for

PE658.738v01-00 144/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

country nationals, in accordance with fundamental rights as general principles of Union law as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations.

returning irregularly staying third-country nationals, in order to ensure its compliance with fundamental rights as general principles of Union law as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations.

Or. en

Justification





This Directive sets out common standards and procedures to be applied in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, in accordance with fundamental rights as general principles of Union law as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations.

This Directive sets out common standards and procedures to be applied in Member States for returning irregularly staying third-country nationals, in accordance with fundamental rights as general principles of Union law as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations.

Or. en

Justification




AM\1214327EN.docx 145/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


1. This Directive applies to third-country nationals staying illegally on the territory of a Member State.

1. This Directive applies to third-country nationals staying irregularly on the territory of a Member State.

Or. en

Justification



Proposal for a directiveArticle 2 – paragraph 2 – point a


(a) are subject to a refusal of entry in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 , or who are apprehended or intercepted by the competent authorities in connection with the irregular crossing by land, sea or air of the external border of a Member State and who have not subsequently obtained an authorisation or a right to stay in that Member State;

deleted

Or. it

Justification

This amendment is needed because it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28, 29 and 30 and to Articles 18, 19 and 20 of this Directive.



PE658.738v01-00 146/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN



deleted

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is linked to amendments tabled to article 22. The exclusion of certain categories of third country nationals from the scope of the directive and non application of key safeguards such as the right to an effective remedy is problematic from the perspective of legal certainty and non discrimination.

Amendment 346Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Birgit Sippel, Domènec Ruiz Devesa




deleted

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 147/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification

Consistency is needed. Clarity and coherence are the best tools to avoid violations of human rights. The parallel regime of article 2 (2)(a) goes against that.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 2 – paragraph 2 – point b


(b) are subject to return as a criminal law sanction or as a consequence of a criminal law sanction, according to national law, or who are the subject of extradition procedures.

(b) are subject to return as a criminal law sanction or as a consequence of a criminal law sanction as a result of a serious crime, according to national law, or who are the subject of extradition procedures., providing the rights of the returnee, including the rights to fair trial have been guaranteed;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to article 16.

Amendment 348Balázs Hidvéghi

Proposal for a directiveArticle 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)


2a. Member States may decide not to apply this Directive to third-country nationals in case of mass influx of migrants into their respected territory.

Or. en

Justification

When there is a crisis situation, such as a mass influx of migrants into the territory of Member

PE658.738v01-00 148/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

States, the administrative burden on Member States shall be eased. Thus, Member States shall have the possibility in crisis situations to derogate from the provisions of the Directive, enabling them to return illegally staying third country nationals in a simplified and faster procedure. The amendment is linked to recitals (2) and (3) as it contributes to an important aspect of better migration management and it is a pre-requisite for an effective return policy.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2


2. ‘illegal stay’ means the presence on the territory of a Member State, of a third-country national who does not fulfil, or no longer fulfils the conditions of entry as set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 or other conditions for entry, stay or residence in that Member State;

2. ‘irregular stay’ means the presence on the territory of a Member State, of a third-country national who does not fulfil, or no longer fulfils the conditions of entry as set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 or other conditions for entry, stay or residence in that Member State;

Or. en

Justification



Proposal for a directiveArticle 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – introductory part


3. ‘return’ means the process of a third-country national going back — whether in voluntary compliance with an obligation to return, or enforced — to:

3. ‘return’ means the process of a third-country national going back — whether in voluntary compliance with an obligation to return, or enforced — to his or her country of origin.

AM\1214327EN.docx 149/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 47.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a


(a) his or her country of origin, or deleted

Or. en

Justification


Amendment 352Sylvie Guillaume

Proposal for a directiveArticle 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b


(b) a country of transit in accordance with Union or bilateral readmission agreements or other arrangements, or

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Under international law, return to a transit country is acceptable if that country offers safety, effective access to asylum procedures and protection from a further removal. In contrast, EU readmission agreements do not contain any mechanism to ensure that the readmitted person has an access to asylum procedure. Hence, return under Article 3(b) of the Return Directive may result in chain refoulement, putting the person at risk of serious violations of his or her fundamental rights. In addition, in line with the UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion 15, people can be returned to a transit country if they have a connection or close links to that country. According to the UNHCR, such meaningful links include family or other close ties,

PE658.738v01-00 150/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

between the person concerned and a country and the mere transit through the third country would not constitute such a link. Such level of connection is missing in the EU readmission agreements.





deleted

Or. en

Justification


Amendment 354Jeroen Lenaers




(b) a country of transit in accordance with Union or bilateral readmission agreements or other applicable arrangements, or

Or. en

Justification

Apart from Union or bilateral readmission agreements, there are several forms of arrangements that are applicable to the return of illegally staying third-country nationals. Linked to recital 36, it is important, especially but not exclusively with regards to detention grounds, that arrangements are applicable to the person involved in the return process.

AM\1214327EN.docx 151/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN





(b) a country of transit in accordance with Union,

Or. it

Justification

In order to ensure parliamentary and democratic oversight, cooperation with countries of transit should be based on formal agreements, rather than on informal arrangements. In order to ensure parliamentary and democratic oversight, cooperation with countries of transit should be based on formal agreements, rather than on informal arrangements. The amendment is linked to the rapporteur’s amendment to recital 47.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c


(c) another third country, to which the third-country national concerned voluntarily decides to return and in which he or she will be accepted;

deleted

Or. en

Justification




PE658.738v01-00 152/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN



(c) any third country, in which the third-country national will be accepted and where there is no risk of breaching the principle of non-refoulement.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is necessary because practise has shown that the Return Directive is not applicable any more without using this extension of countries to which returns can be executed. The internal logic and functionality of this text is endangered without our suggested change. Implementing our amendment is the basis to ensure the application of the rule of law.





(c) another third country, to which the third-country national concerned can legally return and in which he or she will be accepted;

Or. en

Justification

Voluntary return is the most preferred option, however, if the third country national does not return voluntarily the possibility for forced removal should be available. The provisions on voluntary and forced return have been changed in the EC proposal. It is important in both voluntary and forced return to make sure that the travel is legal; this safeguard seems to be absent.

Amendment 359Malik Azmani, Olivier Chastel, Fabienne Keller


AM\1214327EN.docx 153/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



(c) another third country, to which the third-country national concerned can safely return and in which he or she will be accepted;

Or. en

Justification

Voluntary returns prove to be most sustainable. Amendments to this recast will provide more opportunities to maximize the effect and sustainability of voluntary returns. But there are instances where a third-country national does not leave voluntarily. Member States should not be limited in their removal options in enforcing a return decision.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c a (new)


(ca) a third country where the third-country national has a right to enter and reside;

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment follows directly from recital 8 and Amendment 5, of which it is the logical consequence.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c a (new)


(ca) another third country in which he or she will be accepted;

PE658.738v01-00 154/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Or. en

Justification

As the effectiveness of returns is currently very low, as a last resort (especially when the returnee does not cooperate), it should be possible to return illegally staying third country nationals to any third country which will accept them. This amendment follows from recital 12 and Article 7 relating to the obligations to cooperate of returnees as it would also include in the definition of return another possibility which is closely linked to the lack of cooperation.

Amendment 362Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi

Proposal for a directiveArticle 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c b (new)


(cb) as a last resort, if the return to a third country referred to in points (a) to (d) cannot be enforced due to lack of cooperation in the return process by either the third country or the third-country national, any third country with which there is an EU or bilateral agreement on the basis of which the third-country national is accepted, and is allowed to remain, where international human rights standards according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are respected, and provided that no international, European or national rules prevent the return. When the return is carried out to a third country, which has a common border with a Member State, the prior agreement of that Member State is required before starting negotiations on any such bilateral agreement.

Or. fr

Justification


AM\1214327EN.docx 155/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




4. ‘return decision’ means an administrative or judicial decision or act, stating or declaring the stay of a third-country national to be illegal and imposing or stating an obligation to return;

4. ‘return decision’ means an administrative or judicial decision or act, stating or declaring the stay of a third-country national to be irregular and imposing or stating an obligation to return;

Or. en

Justification


Amendment 364Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel



6. ‘entry ban’ means an administrative or judicial decision or act prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of the Member States for a specified period, accompanying a return decision;

6. ‘entry ban’ means an administrative or judicial decision or act prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of the Member States for a specified period;

Or. fr

Justification

For consistency, particularly with recital 25. An entry ban is not necessarily accompanied by a return decision.

PE658.738v01-00 156/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Amendment 365Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa



7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of reasons in an individual case which are based on objective criteria defined by law to believe that a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond;

7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the proven existence of specific reasons in an individual case which are based on objective and specific criteria strictly defined by law to believe that a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled on Article 6 on the risk of absconding. This proposed definition is more precise, will lead to legal certainty and is in line with the Parliament's position on other files, such as in the CEAS.





7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the proven existence of reasons in an individual case which are based on specific and objective criteria strictly defined by law to believe that a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the deletion amendment table to Article 6 on the risk of absconding.

AM\1214327EN.docx 157/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN





7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of reasons in an individual case which are based on objective criteria defined by this Directive to believe that a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond;

Or. it

Justification

This amendment is needed because it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 6 of this Directive.





7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of clear indicators in an individual case which are based on objective criteria defined by law to believe that a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is necessary as it relates to the internal logic of the text in particular to Article (6) on the risk of absconding by providing a more precise definition.

PE658.738v01-00 158/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN





7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of reasons in an individual case which are based on objective criteria to believe that a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond;

Or. nl

Justification

The law cannot foresee all objective criteria.




8. ‘voluntary departure’ means compliance with the obligation to return within the time-limit fixed for that purpose in the return decision;

8. ‘voluntary departure’ means compliance with the obligation to return at any stage of the return procedure, as a consequence of an informed decision, taken freely by the person concerned in the absence of any physical, psychological, or material pressure to return voluntarily or to enrol in Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration programme;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it inextricably linked to amendments tabled in recital 14 and Article 9 relating to voluntary departure.

AM\1214327EN.docx 159/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




9. ‘vulnerable persons’ means minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence.

9. ‘persons in a vulnerable situation’ means persons facing a diminished capacity to resist, cope with, or recover from violence, exploitation, abuse or violations of their rights due to the presence of factors and circumstances at the individual, community, household, structural and/or situational level that increase the risk of, and exposure to, such violence, exploitation, abuse, or rights violation or due to the absence of factors that protect against such violence, exploitation, abuse and rights violations.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment to Recital 4.

Amendment 372Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Hilde Vautmans, Fabienne Keller



9. ‘vulnerable persons’ means minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence.

9. ‘vulnerable persons’ means minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex persons, persons belonging to religious minorities, non-believers, and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual and gender based violence.

PE658.738v01-00 160/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment on Article 14 on the return management system to include specific attention for vulnerable persons. This amendment will widen the scope of this definition to persons that can be found to be in serious situations of vulnerability, and this amendment is also in line with the Parliament's position in other files, such as in the CEAS.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)


9a. 10. ‘other authorisation offering a right to stay’ means any document issued by a Member State to a third-country national authorising them to stay on its territory, which is not a residence permit within the meaning of Article 2(16) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 or a long-stay visa within the meaning of Article 2(14) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 (SIS Regulation on returns), except for the document referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2013/33/EU.

Or. fr

Justification



Proposal for a directiveArticle 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part


AM\1214327EN.docx 161/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

1. This Directive shall be without prejudice to more favourable provisions of:

1. This Directive shall be without prejudice to provisions of:

Or. nl

Justification

Stricter, tailor-made bilateral agreements should not be ruled out.




2. This Directive shall be without prejudice to any provision which may be more favourable for the third-country national, laid down in the Union acquis relating to immigration and asylum.

deleted

Or. nl

Justification

In view of the way the asylum crisis is increasingly going off the rails, a standstill obligation cannot be accepted. This paragraph should be deleted because it runs counter to the general objective set out in recital 3 concerning the need to achieve effective return.




3. This Directive shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to adopt or maintain provisions that are more favourable to persons to whom it applies provided that such provisions are

3. This Directive shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to adopt or maintain provisions that are more favourable or more stringent to persons to whom it applies provided that such provisions are compatible with this

PE658.738v01-00 162/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

compatible with this Directive. Directive.

Or. nl

Justification

Member States should preserve sovereignty, taking into account their specific socio-economic circumstances. They may have to be stricter than the European minimum standard. The amendment emphasises that Member States remain sovereign, as stated in recital 4.




4. With regard to third-country nationals excluded from the scope of this Directive in accordance with Article 2(2)(a), Member States shall:

deleted

(a) ensure that their treatment and level of protection are no less favourable than as set out in Article 10(4) and (5) (limitations on use of coercive measures), Article 11(2)(a) (postponement of removal), Article 17(1)(b) and (d) (emergency health care and taking into account needs of vulnerable persons), and Articles 19 and 20 (detention conditions) and(b) respect the principle of non-refoulement.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 22 on the border procedure.

Amendment 378Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Fabienne Keller

AM\1214327EN.docx 163/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



(a) ensure that their treatment and level of protection are no less favourable than as set out in Article 10(4) and (5) (limitations on use of coercive measures), Article 11(2)(a) (postponement of removal), Article 17(1)(b) and (d) (emergency health care and taking into account needs of vulnerable persons), and Articles 19 and 20 (detention conditions) and

(a) ensure that their treatment and level of protection are no less favourable than as set out in Article 10(4) and (5) (limitations on use of coercive measures), Article11(2)(a) (postponement of removal), Article 12 (return and removal of children), Article 15 (form), Article 16 (remedies), Article 17 (safeguards pending return)14(1)(b) and (d) (emergency health care and taking into account needs of vulnerable persons), Article 18 (detention) and Articles 19 and 20(detention conditions) and

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendments tabled to Article 22 on the border procedure. Although Art. 2(2)(a) foresees the possibility to exclude certain categories of third country nationals from the scope of this Directive, this should not lead to lowering of the applicable standards.




(a) ensure that their treatment and level of protection are no less favourable than as set out in Article 10(4) and (5) (limitations on use of coercive measures), Article 11(2)(a) (postponement of removal), Article 17(1)(b) and (d) (emergency health care and taking into account needs of vulnerable persons), and Articles 19 and 20 (detention conditions) and

(a) ensure that their treatment and level of protection are no less favourable than as set out in Article 10(4) and (5) (limitations on use of coercive measures), Article 11(2)(a) (postponement of removal), Article 12 (consideration of best interest of the child and return to caregiver or adequate reception facilities), Article 17(1)(b) and (d) (emergency health care and taking into account needs of vulnerable persons), and Articles 19 and 20 (detention

PE658.738v01-00 164/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

conditions) and

Or. en

Justification

It is important to clarify that the decision by a Member State to derogate on the basis of Article 2(2)(a) still respects certain legal obligations including those under Article 12 concerning unaccompanied minors. The Parliament always emphasizes the importance of the right of the child especially in situations where children are returned. It is important that the article 2(2)(a) derogation provide for less favourable treatment.




(b) respect the principle of non-refoulement.

deleted

Or. fr

Justification


Amendment 381Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Michal Šimečka, Fabienne Keller



(b) respect the principle of non-refoulement.

(b) respect the principle of non-refoulement, best interest of the child, family life and state of health (Article 5)

AM\1214327EN.docx 165/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendments tabled to Article 22 on the border procedure. Although Art. 2(2)(a) foresees the possibility to exclude certain categories of third country nationals from the scope of this Directive, this should not lead to lowering of the applicable standards.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 5 – title


5 Non-refoulement, best interests of the child, family life and state of health

5 Best interests of the child, family life and state of health

Or. fr

Justification


Amendment 383Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Hilde Vautmans, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Olivier Chastel, Michal Šimečka, Fabienne Keller



(a) the best interests of the child; (a) the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in all decisions concerning minors;

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 166/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 14 on the return management system, in which due attention should be given to vulnerable persons, including minors.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)


(ca) the special needs of persons with disabilities, elderly persons, pregnant women, victims of trafficking in human beings, persons with serious illnesses, persons with mental disorders and persons who have been subject to torture, rape, or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, such as victims of female genital mutilation.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Recital 38 and Article 14.




(c a) the rights of their own population

Or. nl

AM\1214327EN.docx 167/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification

Asylum policy must protect not only the asylum seeker, but also a country’s own population. This amendment is based on recital 4 and amendment 2 for recital 4, referring to Article 15 of the ECHR.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1


and respect the principle of non-refoulement.

deleted

Or. fr

Justification



Proposal for a directiveArticle 6


Article 6 deletedRisk of absconding

1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least the following criteria:(a) lack of documentation proving the identity;(b) lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;

PE658.738v01-00 168/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

(c) lack of financial resources;(d) illegal entry into the territory of the Member States;(e) unauthorised movement to the territory of another Member State;(f) explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Directive;(g) being subject of a return decision issued by another Member State;(h) non-compliance with a return decision, including with an obligation to return within the period for voluntary departure;(i) non-compliance with the requirement of Article 8(2) to go immediately to the territory of another Member State that granted a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay;(j) not fulfilling the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures, referred to in Article 7;(k) existence of conviction for a criminal offence, including for a serious criminal offence in another Member State;(l) ongoing criminal investigations and proceedings;(m) using false or forged identity documents, destroying or otherwise disposing of existing documents, or refusing to provide fingerprints as required by Union or national law;(n) opposing violently or fraudulently the return procedures;(o) not complying with a measure aimed at preventing the risk of absconding referred to in Article 9(3);(p) not complying with an existing entry ban.2.The existence of a risk of absconding

AM\1214327EN.docx 169/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account the objective criteria referred to in paragraph 1.However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. en

Amendment 388Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph -1 (new)


-1. The existence of a risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances and the future behaviour that can be reasonably expected in the individual case, taking into account the following objective criteria

Or. en




1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least

deleted

PE658.738v01-00 170/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

the following criteria:(a) lack of documentation proving the identity;(b) lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;(c) lack of financial resources;(d) illegal entry into the territory of the Member States;(e) unauthorised movement to the territory of another Member State;(f) explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Directive;(g) being subject of a return decision issued by another Member State;(h) non-compliance with a return decision, including with an obligation to return within the period for voluntary departure;(i) non-compliance with the requirement of Article 8(2) to go immediately to the territory of another Member State that granted a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay;(j) not fulfilling the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures, referred to in Article 7;(k) existence of conviction for a criminal offence, including for a serious criminal offence in another Member State;(l) ongoing criminal investigations and proceedings;(m) using false or forged identity documents, destroying or otherwise disposing of existing documents, or refusing to provide fingerprints as required by Union or national law;(n) opposing violently or fraudulently the return procedures;(o) not complying with a measure aimed at preventing the risk of absconding

AM\1214327EN.docx 171/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

referred to in Article 9(3);(p) not complying with an existing entry ban.

Or. en




1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least the following criteria:

1. The existence of a risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account objective criteria, which shall include at least the following criteria:

Or. en





1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include the following criteria and any other criterion deemed useful by Member States:

Or. fr


PE658.738v01-00 172/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall exclusively include the following criteria:

Or. en

Amendment 393Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache, Fabienne Keller




1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 may only include the following criteria:

Or. en

Justification

The Commission proposal listed a number of objective criteria that were so broad that virtually all irregular third country nationals would be covered by it. On top, the proposed list was non-exhaustive. This would have a very serious effect due to the link between the risk of absconding and detention, as well as for limiting the options for voluntary departure. This would entail serious costs, as the EP impact assessment underlined, both for the third country nationals as well as for Member States. It would be better to provide legal certainty and harmonisation across the Union on the risk of absconding and introduce an exhaustive list of objective criteria here. The criteria should be precise and actually constitute a link with the risk of absconding.



AM\1214327EN.docx 173/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 are as follows:

Or. it




(a) lack of documentation proving the identity;

deleted

Or. it





deleted

Or. en




PE658.738v01-00 174/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


deleted

Or. en

Justification

Many asylum applicants and other third country nationals may not always be able to provide such documentation. For instance, such documents may have been lost or taken from them. This in itself is no objective criterion to expect a risk of absconding. It is not a criterion that helps establish future behaviour.




(b) lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;

deleted

Or. en

Justification

The absence of such residence, fixed abode or “reliable” address can often be the case, thus exposing a potentially large number of individuals to detention, and homelessness is as such no reliable criterion for the future risk of absconding.




(b) lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;

deleted

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 175/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point c


(c) lack of financial resources; deleted

Or. it





Or. en





Or. en

Justification

It is unclear how a lack of financial resources is a reliable criterion for the future risk of absconding. In fact, financial resources are often exactly needed to abscond.

PE658.738v01-00 176/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point d


(d) illegal entry into the territory of the Member States;

deleted

Or. en





deleted

Or. en

Justification

Depending on Member States’ interpretation, this could cover virtually all asylum-seekers arriving at the external borders. It would thus potentially allow for the detention of large groups of asylum-seekers. Moreover, such entry in past is no reliable criterion for the future risk of absconding





deleted

AM\1214327EN.docx 177/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Or. it





(d) illegal entry into the territory of the Member States or apprehension or interception relating to the irregular crossing by land, sea or air of the external border of a Member State;

Or. fr


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point e


(e) unauthorised movement to the territory of another Member State;

deleted

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point e


(e) unauthorised movement to the territory of another Member State;

(e) unauthorised movement to the territory of another Member State, including movement after transit through a third country or attempts to do so;

PE658.738v01-00 178/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Or. fr


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point f


(f) explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Directive;

(f) explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with all return-related measures applied by virtue of this Directive or actions clearly demonstrating an intent not to comply with all of these measures;

Or. fr


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point g


(g) being subject of a return decision issued by another Member State;

deleted

Or. it

Amendment 411Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Beata Kempa, Patryk Jaki

Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point g


(g) being subject of a return decision issued by another Member State;

(g) being subject of a return decision issued by another Member State, if consent for transit has not been given pursuant to

AM\1214327EN.docx 179/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Article 9(5)

Or. pl

Justification

This recital is supplemented in line with amendments tabled to Article 9(5).


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point i


(i) non-compliance with the requirement of Article 8(2) to go immediately to the territory of another Member State that granted a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay;

deleted

Or. it


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point i


(i) non-compliance with the requirement of Article 8(2) to go immediately to the territory of another Member State that granted a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay;

(i) non-compliance with the requirement of Article 8(2) to go to the territory of another Member State that granted a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay;

Or. en

Amendment 414

PE658.738v01-00 180/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point j


(j) not fulfilling the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures, referred to in Article 7;

deleted

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point j


(j) not fulfilling the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures, referred to in Article 7;

deleted

Or. it


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point k


(k) existence of conviction for a criminal offence, including for a serious criminal offence in another Member State;

(k) existence of conviction for a criminal offence, including for a serious criminal offence in another Member State, where the sentence has not been fully served;

Or. it

AM\1214327EN.docx 181/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN





(k) existence of conviction for a serious criminal offence in a Member State;

Or. en

Justification

The conviction of any criminal offence, including minor ones, as such is no reliable objective factor to establish the future risk of absconding. However the conviction of serious criminal offence may be. This should not just be the case for such convictions in other Member States but in all Member States.





(k) existence of a prior conviction for a criminal offence, including in another Member State;

Or. fr


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point l


PE658.738v01-00 182/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

(l) ongoing criminal investigations and proceedings;

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Ongoing criminal investigations and proceedings may be a legitimate ground for imposing restrictions or even detention. However, this is not a matter to be legislated on in this Directive. There are sufficient grounds under national criminal law to impose restrictions or detention in such cases.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point m


(m) using false or forged identity documents, destroying or otherwise disposing of existing documents, or refusing to provide fingerprints as required by Union or national law;

deleted

Or. en





(m) using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents setting out the conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using pseudonyms with fraudulent intent, communicating other false information orally or in writing, refusing to provide biometric data as required by Union or

AM\1214327EN.docx 183/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

national law;

Or. fr





(m) destroying or otherwise disposing of existing documents, or refusing to provide fingerprints as required by Union or national law;

Or. en

Justification

The use of false or forged identity documents as such is no reliable objective factor to establish the future risk of absconding. In addition, many asylum seekers have no alternative to the use of false or forged identity documents to escape their country of origin. However, the intentional act of destroying or disposing of such documents may be an objective factor to establish the future risk of absconding.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point n


(n) opposing violently or fraudulently the return procedures;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 424

PE658.738v01-00 184/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point o


(o) not complying with a measure aimed at preventing the risk of absconding referred to in Article 9(3);

deleted

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point p


(p) not complying with an existing entry ban.

deleted

Or. it


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point p



deleted

Or. en



AM\1214327EN.docx 185/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point p



(p) not complying with a valid entry ban.

Or. fr


Proposal for a directiveArticle 6 – paragraph 1 – point p a (new)


(pa) risk to public order, public security or national security.

Or. fr




1a. Member States may lay down additional objective criteria in their national legislation.

Or. fr




PE658.738v01-00 186/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

2. The existence of a risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account the objective criteria referred to in paragraph 1.

deleted

However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. en




The existence of a risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account the objective criteria referred to in paragraph 1.

The existence of a risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account the objective criteria referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1a.

Or. fr




However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective

deleted

AM\1214327EN.docx 187/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

criteria referred to in points (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. en

Justification

This proposal departs from the principle that there should always be an individual assessment of the risk of absconding, by inserting an automatic presumption of the risk of absconding for certain grounds.

Amendment 433Isabel Santos

Proposal for a directiveArticle 6.º – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2



Deleted

Or. pt





However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p) and (q) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. fr

PE658.738v01-00 188/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN





Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. en





However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (k) (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. en

Justification

A third-country national convicted e.g. for a serious criminal offence in another Member State has in itself demonstrated to move between Member States.



AM\1214327EN.docx 189/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (m), (n) and (o) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. it




7 Obligation to cooperate 7 Obligation to cooperate on the part of third-country nationals

Or. fr




Obligation to cooperate Information and cooperation

Or. en



PE658.738v01-00 190/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


Obligation to cooperate Provision of information

Or. en




Obligation to cooperate Cooperation

Or. en




1. Member States shall impose on third-country nationals the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. That obligation shall include the following in particular:

1. Member States shall impose on third-country nationals the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures, unless the third-country national can substantiate that they will leave without assistance. That obligation shall include the following in particular:

Or. en



AM\1214327EN.docx 191/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



1. Member States shall impose on third-country nationals the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures, unless the third-country national can substantiate that they will leave without assistance. That obligation shall include the following in particular:

Or. en





1. Member States shall inform third-country nationals in the process of return, in a language which they understand, in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, of the stages of the return procedures. The information provided shall include the following in particular:

Or. en




1. Member States shall impose on third-country nationals the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the

1. Member States shall facilitate the cooperation between third-country nationals and the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the

PE658.738v01-00 192/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

return procedures. That obligation shall include the following in particular:

return procedures. All information on the procedure shall be given to the third country nationals in a language which they understand.

Or. en





1. Member States shall take measures that facilitate that the competent authorities and the third country national to mutually cooperate and provide information.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment acknowledges the importance of mutual provision of information and cooperation during the return procedure. It is thus more balanced than the Commission proposal, which only put duties on the third country national. Mutual information provision and cooperation is crucial for trust building in the return process, making it more efficient and effective, as well as being able to take into account the specific circumstances of the third country national.




(a) the duty to provide all the elements that are necessary for establishing or

deleted

AM\1214327EN.docx 193/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

verifying identity;

Or. en

Justification

Justification: this element is now reflected in a new and more balanced amendment on Article 7(2).




(a) the duty to provide all the elements that are necessary for establishing or verifying identity;

(a) the duty to provide all the elements that are necessary for establishing or verifying identity, including age through bone or dental tests;

Or. fr





(a) the duty to provide all the elements that are necessary for establishing or verifying identity and to prove, upon request, the efforts made;

Or. fr


PE658.738v01-00 194/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




(a) Third country nationals cooperate to provide all the elements that are necessary for establishing or verifying identity;

Or. en





(a) an overview and explanation of the different stages of the return procedure;

Or. en




(b) the duty to provide information on the third countries transited;

deleted

Or. en



AM\1214327EN.docx 195/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b



deleted

Or. en





deleted

Or. en

Justification






deleted

Or. it


PE658.738v01-00 196/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




(b) the duty to provide information on the third countries transited and on the contact people or guides;

Or. ro




(c) the duty to remain present and available throughout the procedures;

deleted

Or. en

Justification






deleted

Or. en

Amendment 459

AM\1214327EN.docx 197/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel




(c) the duty to provide a reliable address to the competent authorities, in the form and within the time frame established by national law, and to remain present and available throughout the procedures;

Or. fr





(c) Third country nationals remain available throughout the procedures;

Or. en




(ca) knowledge of the consequences of not complying with an obligation to return following a return decision;

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 198/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


Proposal for a directiveArticle 7 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)


(cb) knowledge of the time-frame of the procedure, including any time limits which the competent authorities are required to respect, including the time limits for detention;

Or. en




(d) the duty to lodge to the competent authorities of third countries a request for obtaining a valid travel document.

deleted

Or. en

Justification





(d) the duty to lodge to the competent authorities of third countries a request for

deleted

AM\1214327EN.docx 199/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

obtaining a valid travel document.

Or. en





deleted

Or. en





(d) the duty to lodge to the competent authorities of third countries a request for obtaining a valid travel document, to provide all information and statements necessary to obtain such a document, and to cooperate with these authorities.

Or. fr




PE658.738v01-00 200/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


(d) the duty to lodge to the competent authorities of third countries a request for obtaining a valid travel document, and fulfil requirements with regard to his or her medical condition as required by the country of origin;

Or. en





(d) the duty to lodge to the competent authorities of third countries a request for obtaining a valid travel document and fulfil requirements with regard to his or her medical condition as required by the country of origin;

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 7 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)


(da) a clear overview of the rights and obligations during the procedure, including the right to an effective remedy, to appeal against or seek review of decisions related to return or detention as referred to in Articles 15 and 18a and the right to free legal assistance and interpretation;

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 201/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


Proposal for a directiveArticle 7 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)


(da) the duty to appear in person, if and where required for that purpose, before the competent national and third-country authorities.

Or. fr


Proposal for a directiveArticle 7 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)


(db) knowledge of the outcome of decisions related to return or detention as referred to in Articles 15 and 18, the reasons for that decision, and the elements taken into consideration for the purposes of the decision as well as the deadlines and manner in which such a decision may be challenged.

Or. en




2. The elements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third-

deleted

PE658.738v01-00 202/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession regarding the identity, nationality or nationalities, age, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation.

Or. en




2. The elements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third-country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession regarding the identity, nationality or nationalities, age, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation.

deleted

Or. en





2. (1) The third country national shall, to the best of his/her knowledge and capabilities, inform the competent authorities on the elements necessary to establish or verify his/her identity, including, where available, documentation regarding nationality or nationalities, age, country or countries and place or places of

AM\1214327EN.docx 203/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation. The third country national shall also remain present and available throughout the procedure and shall, to the extent possible and where not jeopardising his or her rights or safety, cooperate with lodging a request for obtaining a valid travel document with the competent authorities of third countries.

Or. en





2. The elements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third-country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession regarding the identity, nationality or nationalities, age and means of verifying the declared age through a bone or dental test, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation, and any other element that Member States may deem useful.

Or. fr




2. The elements referred to in point 2. The elements referred to in point

PE658.738v01-00 204/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

(a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third-country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession regarding the identity, nationality or nationalities, age, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation.

(a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third-country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession regarding the identity, place and date of birth, nationality or nationalities, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation, and biometric data.

Or. fr




3. Member States shall inform the third-country nationals about the consequences of not complying with the obligation referred to in paragraph 1.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 478Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache, Olivier Chastel, Maite Pagazaurtundúa




3. Member States shall inform the third-country nationals in writing in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language on the basis of a standard template which shall be developed by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, and in a language that the applicant understands. Where necessary, this information shall, in addition, be

AM\1214327EN.docx 205/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

supplied orally and in a visual form through videos or pictograms, and shall take into account the individual circumstances, especially for vulnerable persons. This information shall include, at least, a clear overview of the return procedure, the rights and obligations during the procedure, the consequences of not complying with an obligation to return following a return decision, and the contacts of non-governmental and international organisations that can provide advice, and the options for sustainable returns, such as support and reintegration measures.

Or. en

Justification

This lays down more precise elements and formats of information to be provided, also in line with EP positions on information provision in the CEAS and as already partially agreed in trilogues.





3. Member States shall inform the third-country nationals about the consequences of not complying with the obligation referred to in paragraph 1. When children, information shall be provided in a child-friendly manner and in a language they understand, in the presence of child protection officers, or the guardian.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 206/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Justification

In order to ensure that the best interests of the child are always the primary consideration, a guardian for separated and unaccompanied children should be appointed. This amendment is based on the FRA Handbook on Guardianship for children deprived of parental care, p.26 et seq.





3. Member States shall inform the third-country nationals about the consequences of not complying with the obligation referred to in paragraph 1. Member States shall lay down the procedures for providing such information.

Or. fr




3a. All the information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided in good time to enable the third-country national to exercise the rights guaranteed under this Directive. The information shall be provided both orally and in writing. In the case of minors, information shall be provided in a child-friendly manner by staff appropriately trained also in Union and international human rights law, as well as Union and international refugee law, and with the involvement of the

AM\1214327EN.docx 207/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

family members or of the guardian.

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 7 – paragraph 3 b (new)


3b. Member States shall make available general information sheets explaining the main elements of the return procedure, imparted both orally and in writing.

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 7 – paragraph 3 c (new)


3c. Member States shall make available to the third-country national the assistance of a case-worker to assist him or her during the procedure in line with Article 14.

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 7 – paragraph 3 d (new)

PE658.738v01-00 208/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


3d. Member States shall provide third-country nationals in the process of return with the opportunity to communicate with the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and with the contact details of organisations providing legal advice or counselling. Legal advice and counselling should be provided systematically and in all stages of the procedure, including as legal remedies are concerned.

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 7 – paragraph 3 e (new)


3e. Member States shall provide third-country nationals in the process of return access to health care and all other social services they need.

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 7 a (new)


Article 7 aThe right to be heard

Before the adoption of a return decision, the right to be heard shall be granted to the third country national, in particular to

AM\1214327EN.docx 209/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

consider:a) the regular or irregular stay of the third-country national;b) all circumstances affecting the obligation to issue a return decision under article 8 paragraph 2,3,4, 5;c) personal and family situation;d) the willingness to voluntary departure pursuant to the article 9;e) any other relevant detail in order to avoid the violation of fundamental rights, in particular the principle of non refoulement, the right to family life, as well as the best interests of the child.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment aims to introduce the right to be hears to the third country national subject to a return decision, as recognised by CJEU in the case C-249/13, Bouljlida and -82/16, K.A.


Proposal for a directiveChapter 2 – title


TERMINATION OF ILLEGAL STAY TERMINATION OF IRREGULAR STAY

Or. en

Justification



PE658.738v01-00 210/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Proposal for a directiveChapter 2 – title


TERMINATION OF ILLEGAL STAY TERMINATION OF IRREGULAR STAY

Or. en




1. Member States shall issue a return decision to any third-country national staying illegally on their territory, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.

1. Member States shall, before issuing a return decision to any third-country national staying irregularly on their territory, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5, always check if the status of the person could be regularised based on his or her existing ties to the Member State.

Or. en

Justification





1. Member States shall issue a return decision to any third-country national staying illegally on their territory, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in

1. Member States shall issue a return decision and a detention order to any third-country national staying illegally on their territory, without prejudice to the

AM\1214327EN.docx 211/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

paragraphs 2 to 5. exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.

Or. nl

Justification

A return decision without a detention order has remained a dead letter in the vast majority of cases today. It is this that makes European asylum policy fail. This amendment follows the recommendation in recital 28 not to obstruct the preparation of return.




1. Member States shall issue a return decision to any third-country national staying illegally on their territory, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.

1. Member States shall issue a return decision to any third-country national staying irregularly on their territory, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.

Or. en

Justification





2. Third-country nationals staying illegally on the territory of a Member State and holding a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay issued by another Member State shall

deleted

PE658.738v01-00 212/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

be required to go to the territory of that other Member State immediately. In the event of non-compliance by the third-country national concerned with this requirement, or where the third-country national’s immediate departure is required for reasons of public policy or national security, paragraph 1 shall apply.

Or. en

Justification





2. Third-country nationals staying illegally on the territory of a Member State and holding a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay issued by another Member State shall be required to go to the territory of that other Member State immediately. In the event of non-compliance by the third-country national concerned with this requirement, or where the third-country national’s immediate departure is required for reasons of public policy or national security, paragraph 1 shall apply.

2. Third-country nationals staying irregularly on the territory of a Member State and holding a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay issued by another Member State shall be required to go to the territory of that other Member State immediately. In the event of non-compliance by the third-country national concerned with this requirement, or where the third-country national’s immediate departure is required for reasons of public policy or national security, paragraph 1 shall apply.

Or. en

Justification


AM\1214327EN.docx 213/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


Proposal for a directiveArticle 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)


In the event of non-compliance by the third-country national concerned with this requirement, paragraph 1 shall apply and the Member State that issued the return decision shall start a consultation in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1860.When the Member State that issued the residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay notifies to the Member State that issued the return decision that it is maintaining that permit or authorisation, or when it does not take a decision within the period set by letter (e) of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1860, that Member State shall be obliged to admit the third-country national into its territory.

Or. en

Justification

As the Regulation only establishes rules regarding the consultation between Member States, the Directive should establish the rule for the Member State to admit the third country national to its territory, which is the logical consequence of the procedure started under Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 in the cases where the valid residence permit or other authorisation were not withdrawn. As the IS return legislation was published on 28 November 2018, after the proposal on return by the Commission, it is important to link the two files as they both touch upon the issue of return and for legal consistency.




PE658.738v01-00 214/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

3. Member States may refrain from issuing a return decision to a third-country national staying illegally on their territory if the third-country national concerned is taken back by another Member State under bilateral arrangements or agreements existing on 13 January 2009. In such a case the Member State which has taken back the third-country national concerned shall apply paragraph 1.

3. Member States may refrain from issuing a return decision to a third-country national staying illegally on their territory if the third-country national concerned is taken back by another Member State under agreements existing on 13 January 2009. A decision by a Member State not to adopt a return decision pursuant to a bilateral agreement must be issued in writing and accompanied by an appropriate statement of reasons, and must take into account all the procedural and substantive guarantees laid down by this Directive and EU law. Such decisions must never prejudice access to the international protection procedure or the rights of minors.

Or. it

Justification

Only readmission agreements allow democratic and parliamentary oversight; any decision not to return an individual must comply with all the procedural and substantive guarantees and safeguard the principle of the best interests of minors. The amendment is linked to the amendments submitted to recitals 16 and 19 on return decisions and the possibility of appealing against them.




3. Member States may refrain from issuing a return decision to a third-country national staying illegally on their territory if the third-country national concerned is taken back by another Member State under bilateral agreements or arrangements existing on 13 January 2009 . In such a case the Member State which has taken back the third-country national concerned shall apply paragraph 1.

3. Member States may refrain from issuing a return decision to a third-country national staying irregularly on their territory if the third-country national concerned is taken back by another Member State under bilateral agreements or arrangements existing on 13 January 2009 . In such a case the Member State which has taken back the third-country national concerned shall apply paragraph 1.

AM\1214327EN.docx 215/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Or. en

Justification





4. Member States may at any moment decide to grant an autonomous residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons to a third-country national staying illegally on their territory. In that event no return decision shall be issued. Where a return decision has already been issued, it shall be withdrawn or suspended for the duration of validity of the residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay.

deleted

Or. nl

Justification

The asylum procedure in itself provides sufficient guarantees that the individual situation of the third-country national is taken into account. This amendment is linked to recital 28, which already refers to an individual assessment.




PE658.738v01-00 216/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


4. Member States shall always examine whether the person could be granted an autonomous residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay for compassionate, humanitarian, rights-based or other reasons to a third-country national staying irregularly on their territory. In that event no return decision shall be issued. Where a return decision has already been issued, it shall be withdrawn or suspended for the duration of validity of the residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay.

Or. en

Justification

This amendments is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 4.





4. In any event, Member States must assess the possibility of granting an autonomous residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons to a third-country national staying illegally on their territory. In that event no return decision shall be issued. Where a return decision has already been issued, it shall be withdrawn or suspended for the duration of validity of the residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay.

Or. it

Justification

The current wording leaves wide discretion to Member States to decide whether or not to

AM\1214327EN.docx 217/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

make use of a permit or authorisation for compassionate or humanitarian reasons. The amendment is linked to the amendments to recital 19 on the suspension of a decision for other reasons.





4. Member States may at any moment decide to grant an autonomous residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons to a third-country national staying irregularly on their territory. In that event no return decision shall be issued. Where a return decision has already been issued, it shall be withdrawn or suspended for the duration of validity of the residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay.

Or. en

Justification





5. If a third-country national staying illegally on the territory of a Member State is the subject of a pending procedure for renewing his or her residence permit or

5. If a third-country national staying illegally on the territory of a Member State is the subject of a pending procedure for renewing his or her residence permit or

PE658.738v01-00 218/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

other authorisation offering a right to stay, that Member State shall consider refraining from issuing a return decision, until the pending procedure is finished.

other authorisation offering a right to stay, a return decision shall terminate that procedure.

Or. nl

Justification

The mixing of different procedures to undermine asylum policy should be avoided. This amendment is necessary in order to achieve the objective set out in recital 3.




5. If a third-country national staying illegally on the territory of a Member State is the subject of a pending procedure for renewing his or her residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay, that Member State shall consider refraining from issuing a return decision, until the pending procedure is finished.

5. If a third-country national staying irregularly on the territory of a Member State is the subject of a pending procedure for renewing his or her residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay, that Member State shall consider refraining from issuing a return decision, until the pending procedure is finished.

Or. en

Justification


Amendment 503Isabel Santos

Proposal for a directiveArticle 8.º – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1


AM\1214327EN.docx 219/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Member States shall issue a return decision immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal stay of a third-country national, including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Qualification Regulation].

Deleted

Or. pt





deleted

Or. en




Member States shall issue a return decision immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal stay of a third-country national, including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/…

Member States shall issue a return decision as provided for in their national legislation:

PE658.738v01-00 220/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

[Qualification Regulation].

Or. en





Member States may issue a return decision immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal stay of a third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 507Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Michal Šimečka, Fabienne Keller




Member States shall issue a return decision immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal stay of a third-country national, including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Qualification Regulation], only where the full scope of the principle of non-refoulement under European and international law is individually assessed in the asylum procedure.

AM\1214327EN.docx 221/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Or. en

Justification

Issuing a return decision directly after or together with the decision ending legal stay should be possible for Member States, but not obligatory, as in certain cases individual circumstances could require not to do so. Moreover, not all Member States fully assess the aspect of refoulement under return acquis during the asylum procedure, or in taking the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay. Also, such immediate issuing of a return decision should not frustrate possible efforts to lodge an appeal, or the right to remain on the territory during such appeals.





Member States shall issue a return decision immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal stay of a third-country national, including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Qualification Regulation] in order to guarantee smooth procedures, which are also in the best interest of the returnees.

Or. en




Member States shall issue a return decision immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal stay of a third-country national, including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee

Member States shall issue a return decision at the same time as or immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal stay of a third-country national, including a decision not granting a third-country

PE658.738v01-00 222/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Qualification Regulation].

national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Qualification Regulation].

Or. fr


Proposal for a directiveArticle 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point a (new)


(a) in the same act with the decision ending or refusing a legal stay of a third- country national, including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) .../... [Qualification Regulation]. or

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point b (new)


(b) together with or without undue delay after the adoption of a decision ending or refusing a legal stay of a third-country national including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) .../... [Qualification Regulation]

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 223/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




This Directive shall not prevent Member States from adopting a return decision together with a decision ending a legal stay of a third-country national, a decision on a removal and/or entry ban in a single administrative or judicial decision or act as provided for in their national legislation.

This Directive shall not prevent Member States from adopting a return decision together with a decision ending a legal stay of a third-country national, a decision on a removal and/or entry ban in a single administrative or judicial decision or act as provided for in their national legislation, without prejudice to the procedural safeguards available under Chapter III and under other relevant provisions of Union and national law.

Or. en




This Directive shall not prevent Member States from adopting a return decision together with a decision ending a legal stay of a third-country national, a decision on a removal and/or entry ban in a single administrative or judicial decision or act as provided for in their national legislation.

This Directive shall not affect, under any circumstances, the rights enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by reducing the levels of and accessibility to effective judicial remedies compared to the available, under national law, to their own citizens.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendments tabled to Article 16.

PE658.738v01-00 224/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




The first and second subparagraphs are without prejudice to the safeguards under Chapter III and under other relevant provisions of Union and national law.

deleted

Or. en




The first and second subparagraphs are without prejudice to the safeguards under Chapter III and under other relevant provisions of Union and national law.

deleted

Or. en




6a. Member States may recognise any return decision issued in accordance with paragraph 1 by competent authorities of other Member States, pursuant to Council Directive 2001/40/EC. In such cases, the return is carried out according to the

AM\1214327EN.docx 225/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

applicable legislation of the Member State that carries out the return procedure.

Or. fr




6b. Member States shall, where necessary, cooperate through designated contact points, for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of return decisions. In particular, Member States may cooperate by allowing transit through the territory of another Member State for the purpose of complying with a return decision or obtaining travel documents. The procedures for such cooperation may be set out in bilateral or multilateral arrangements or agreements and may include conditions on escorting, response deadlines and associated costs.

Or. fr




A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, without prejudice to the exception referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an

A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to six months, without prejudice to the exception referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4.

PE658.738v01-00 226/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

application by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application.

Or. en




A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an application by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application.

A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an application by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application and of the voluntary return programmes available in a language which the illegally staying third-country national understands, in sufficient time to enable them to exercise the rights guaranteed by this Directive.

Or. it




A return decision shall provide for an Member States shall on a case by case

AM\1214327EN.docx 227/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, without prejudice to the exception referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an application by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application.

basis provide for the appropriate period for voluntary departure for a return decision of maximum thirty days, without prejudice to the exception referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an application by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application.

Or. en

Justification

Member States should be allowed to assess on a case by case basis the appropriate amount of days for each return decision. The text was not clear enough on this point. Furthermore a maximum of 30 days is crucial in order to ensure effective return.




A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, without prejudice to the exception referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an application by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application.

A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of thirty days, without prejudice to the exception referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. As a general rule, Member States shall grant such a period, without an application from the third country national being required. Member States shall inform the third-country nationals of this period for voluntary departure.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 228/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Justification

As voluntary departure is the most (cost) efficient option, as underlined by various reports and by the EP impact assessment, this should always be given the full opportunity and priority, rather than limiting it. Making 30 days the standard applicable time frame will allow for clarity and will give actual opportunity for voluntary departure to materialise, as this is often a lengthy process of decision-making and arranging practicalities. Moreover, to fully facilitate voluntary departure, the 30 period should be granted as a general rule, not merely after an application for it by the third country national. This would also limit the burden on the Member States, as no separate application procedure will need to be set up.




A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, without prejudice to the exception referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an application by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application.

In exceptional circumstances, a return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days. Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an application by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application.

Or. nl




A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, without prejudice to the exception referred to in paragraphs 2

A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of thirty days, without prejudice to the exception referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4.

AM\1214327EN.docx 229/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

and 4. Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an application by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application.

Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an application by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application.

Or. en




The time period provided for in the first subparagraph shall not exclude the possibility for the third-country nationals concerned to leave earlier.

deleted

Or. en




The length of the period for voluntary departure shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account in particular the prospect of return.

deleted

Or. nl

Justification

Asylum policy requires simplified, clear procedures in which equal rights are paramount.

PE658.738v01-00 230/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN





deleted

Or. en

Justification

Although a personal determination is certainly crucial, this is not needed as a general rule, as 30 days should in principle always be granted. For exceptional cases of shorter periods, as outline in the amendment to Article 9(4) below, the individual assessment should indeed be made.





deleted

Or. en



AM\1214327EN.docx 231/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



The length of the period for voluntary departure shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case.

Or. fr




2. Member States shall, where necessary, extend the period for voluntary departure by an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as the length of stay, the existence of children attending school and the existence of other family and social links.

deleted

Or. nl

Justification

Children benefit from resuming their education as soon as possible in their home country among their cultural traditions and in their mother tongue. The procedure should be so short that no family and social ties are developed further during the procedure, with a view to invoking these ties to enforce permanent residence after rejection. This amendment does away with the possibility of extension for reasons contrary to the objective set out in recital 3.




PE658.738v01-00 232/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

2. Member States shall, where necessary, extend the period for voluntary departure by an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as the length of stay, the existence of children attending school and the existence of other family and social links.

2. Member States shall, where necessary, extend the period for voluntary departure by an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as the length of stay, the existence of children attending school, the existence of other family and social links, illness and hospitalization.

Or. en

Justification





3. Certain obligations aimed at avoiding the risk of absconding, such as regular reporting to the authorities, deposit of an adequate financial guarantee, submission of documents or the obligation to stay at a certain place may be imposed for the duration of the period for voluntary departure.

3. Certain obligations aimed at avoiding the risk of absconding, such as regular reporting to the authorities, deposit of an adequate financial guarantee that is sustainable for the third country national, submission of documents or the obligation to stay at a certain place may be imposed for the duration of the period for voluntary departure.

Or. en




4. Member States shall not grant a period for voluntary departure in

deleted

AM\1214327EN.docx 233/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

following cases:(a) where there is a risk of absconding determined in accordance with Article 6 ;(b) where an application for legal stay has been dismissed as manifestly unfounded or fraudulent;(c) where the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. en




4. Member States shall not grant a period for voluntary departure in following cases:

4. In exceptional cases, a shorter period for voluntary departure of no less than 15 days could also be granted, after an individual assessment of the prospect of return. A period of less than 15 days can only be granted if an individual assessment has found that the following cases are applicable:

Or. en




4. Member States shall not grant a period for voluntary departure in following cases:

4. Member States may grant a period for voluntary departure of no less than seven days and exceptionally refrain from granting a period of voluntary departure

PE658.738v01-00 234/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

in following cases :

Or. en




(a) where there is a risk of absconding determined in accordance with Article 6 ;

(a) in case of explicit expression of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of the Directive or non-compliance with a measure aiming at preventing the risk of absconding.

Or. en




(b) where an application for legal stay has been dismissed as manifestly unfounded or fraudulent;

deleted

Or. en



AM\1214327EN.docx 235/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


(b) where an application for legal stay has been dismissed as manifestly unfounded or fraudulent;

(b) where an application for legal stay has been dismissed as fraudulent;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled to Article 9(4) regarding the short periods for voluntary departure. The deletion of the case of the “manifestly unfounded” is needed as, linked to the proposals for the Asylum Procedures Regulation, this could cover all asylum applications from “safe” third countries / countries of origin, which would thereby exclude potentially large groups of asylum applicants from the possibility to depart voluntarily.




(c) where the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

(c) where the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security or has been convicted of an offence which is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years.

Or. en

Justification

The addition of this sentence clarifies that also a criminal act that amounts to a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years for the purposes of this Directive should not go without consequences for the return decision that applies to that person. Same applies to other parts of this Directive where this sentence is used.



PE658.738v01-00 236/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


(c) where the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

(c) where the third-country national concerned poses a genuine and present risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. en




(ca) where the examination of an application for international protection was rejected in the cases referred to in Article 39(1c), (1d) or (1f) of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] or where the application for international protection was rejected after an accelerated examination procedure in the cases referred to in Article 40(1b), (1c) or (1d) of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

Or. en

Justification

As the return directive is partly connected to the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR), the Return Directive should be aligned with the Parliament position on the APR. We therefore add the necessary links in this Directive to Article 39 of the APR on implicit withdrawal of applications and to Article 40 of the APR on the accelerated examination procedure.



AM\1214327EN.docx 237/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


(ca) This should particularly apply to third country nationals who have committed offences in several Member States or offences related to terrorism or serious crime.

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 9 – paragraph 4 – point c b (new)


(cb) This should also apply to third country nationals who have been convicted for benefit fraud by using multiple identities.

Or. en




4 a. 5 If a return decision sets a deadline for voluntary departure and provided that the third-country national to whom that decision pertains does not constitute a threat to public order or public security or to the national security of the Member States, he or she may, within that deadline and for the sole purpose of enforcing that decision, transit through the territory of a Member State other than the one which issued the decision.

PE658.738v01-00 238/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Member States may require such transit to be subject to their prior consent.Member States shall inform the Commission and each other of the introduction or withdrawal of the obligation to obtain their prior consent for the transit of a third-country national through their territories.

Or. pl




4a. Member States may decide not to grant a period for voluntary departure where the third-country national concerned poses a genuine and present risk to public security or national security.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to paragraph 4 of Article 9.




4 b. 5. If a third-country national is found on the territory of a Member State:(a) in respect of whom a return decision has been issued by another Member State without a time limit for voluntary

AM\1214327EN.docx 239/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

departure,(b) who, despite being covered by a return decision issued by another Member State which sets a deadline for voluntary departure, has not obtained consent to transit through the territory of that Member State, if such consent was required,(c) who is considered a threat to public order or public security or to the national security of that Member Statethen that Member State may either apply the procedure laid down in Council Directive 2001/40/EC or return the third-country national concerned to the Member State that issued the decision.

Or. pl




1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to enforce the return decision if no period for voluntary departure has been granted in accordance with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to return has not been complied with within the period for voluntary departure granted in accordance with Article 9. Those measures shall include all measures necessary to confirm the identity of illegally staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 547

PE658.738v01-00 240/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Sophia in 't Veld, Malik Azmani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen




1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to enforce the return decision if no period for voluntary departure has been granted in accordance with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to return has not been complied with within the period for voluntary departure granted in accordance with Article 9. Those measures shall include all measures necessary to confirm the identity of illegally staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document. Member States shall also intensify cooperation, including through information sharing and the application of Directive 2001/40/EC on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, in line with fundamental rights guarantees.

Or. en




1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to enforce the return decision if no period for voluntary departure has been granted in accordance with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to return has not been complied with within the period for voluntary departure granted in accordance with Article 9. Those measures shall include all measures

1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to enforce the return decision if no period for voluntary departure has been granted in accordance with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to return has not been complied with within the period for voluntary departure granted in accordance with Article 9. Priority shall be given to those third country nationals

AM\1214327EN.docx 241/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

necessary to confirm the identity of illegally staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document.

having been convicted for severe and repeated criminal offences, in particular terrorism. Those measures shall include all measures necessary to confirm the identity of illegally staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document.

Or. en





1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to enforce the return decision if no period for voluntary departure has been granted in accordance with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to return has not been complied with within the period for voluntary departure granted in accordance with Article 9. Those measures shall include all measures necessary to confirm the identity of illegally staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document, including the penalties laid down in national law where Member States have enacted such penalties.

Or. fr



PE658.738v01-00 242/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN



1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to enforce the return decision. Those measures shall include all measures necessary for the detention of the person of illegally staying third-country nationals and to confirm the identity of illegally staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document.

Or. nl

Justification

Forced return is a necessary component of an efficient asylum system. Only in exceptional situations can a period of voluntary departure be considered.





1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to enforce the return decision if no period for voluntary departure has been granted in accordance with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to return has not been complied with within the period for voluntary departure granted in accordance with Article 9. Those measures shall include all measures necessary to confirm the identity of irregularly staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 243/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification





1a. Without prejudice to the other cases provided by Union and international law for which a removal of a third-country national is not allowed, and in addition to the cases falling within the scope of subsidiary protection, a return decision and the removal of a third country national to a third country or territory affected by restrictive measures taken by the European Union pursuant to Article 215 TFEU or to Title V of Chapter 2 TEU, as well by restrictive measures adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations shall be forbidden - without exception.

Or. en




2. If a Member State has granted a period for voluntary departure in accordance with Article 9, the return decision may be enforced only after the

2. If a Member State has granted a period for voluntary departure in accordance with Article 9, the return decision may be enforced only after the

PE658.738v01-00 244/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

period has expired, unless a risk as referred to in Article 9(4) arises during that period.

period has expired, unless a risk as referred to in Article 9(4a) arises during that period.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to par. 4a of Article 9.




3. Member States may adopt a separate administrative or judicial decision or act ordering the removal.

3. Member States should also order removal in the return decision.

Or. nl

Justification

This leads to administrative simplification and a clearer and fairer legal situation for all third-country nationals. This amendment is necessary in order to achieve an effective return policy, as expressed in recital 3.




4. Where Member States use — as a last resort — coercive measures to carry out the removal of a third-country national who resists removal, such measures shall be proportionate and shall not exceed reasonable force. They shall be implemented as provided for in national legislation in accordance with

4. Member States shall never use coercive measures to carry out the removal of a third-country national. Member States shall always abide by fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned.

AM\1214327EN.docx 245/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned.

Or. en

Justification





4. Where Member States use — as a last resort — coercive measures to carry out the removal of a third-country national who resists removal, such measures shall be proportionate and shall not exceed reasonable force. They shall be implemented as provided for in national legislation in accordance with fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned.

4. Where Member States use coercive measures to carry out the removal of a third-country national who resists removal, such measures shall be proportionate and shall not exceed reasonable force. They shall be implemented as provided for in national legislation in accordance with fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned.

Or. nl

Justification

Forced repatriation of the illegal alien should be the first choice. This amendment is necessary in order to achieve an effective return policy, as expressed in recital 3.




PE658.738v01-00 246/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

5. In carrying out removals by air, Member States shall take into account the Common Guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air annexed to Decision 2004/573/EC.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendment tabled to recital 40.




6. Member States shall provide for an effective forced-return monitoring system.

6. Member States shall ensure the monitoring of returns through independent national human rights institutions. Member States shall ensure that all return operations are duly monitored by independent return monitors, adequately trained on Union and international fundamental rights and refugee law.

Or. en

Justification





6. Member States shall provide for an 6. Member States shall provide for an effective forced-return monitoring system.

AM\1214327EN.docx 247/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

effective forced-return monitoring system. This system shall not involve the systematic implementation of a check on each forced return operation.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment adds detail to recital 4 and clarifies the scope of the obligations resulting from it.




6a. The independent return monitors, shall carry out inspections, also without prior notice, to the detention facilities and any other national facilities where third country nationals are being detained or are being hosted pending removal.During the inspection, the independent return monitors shall have the possibility to:- have access to all areas of the detention facilities;- interview the third-country national detained or hosted there;- ask any questions to the staff working in the detention facilities;- demand and receive copies of documents;Each independent national human rights institution mandated to monitor returns shall report to the European Parliament and/or to the national parliament of the relevant Member State where the institution is based, regarding infringements of the provisions of this Directive, as well as in the case of violation of fundamental rights by the

PE658.738v01-00 248/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Member State in the application of the Directive.

Or. en

Justification





6 a. Member States may decide that any costs they incur in connection with an expulsion shall be reimbursed by the third-country national concerned by the return decision or by any other person or entity responsible for the third-country national’s stay or employment in their territory.

Or. pl




(a) when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement, or

deleted

Or. fr

Justification

In order to achieve consistency with the amendments to Article 16 – paragraph 3 –

AM\1214327EN.docx 249/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

subparagraph and Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1, the references to the principle of non-refoulement should be deleted.




(a) when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement; or

deleted

Or. nl

Justification

The principle of non-refoulement is sufficiently guaranteed and is not served by the postponement of removal. The principle of non-refoulement has already been mentioned in recital 20 and the international human rights conventions referred to were mentioned in recital 4. A mere postponement of expulsion runs counter to an effective asylum policy as expressed in recital 3.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 11 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)


(ba) the third country national's participation in ongoing criminal or administrative proceedings as victims, suspects or witnesses, in particular in relation to Directive 2009/52/EC, Directive 2011/36/EU, and Directive 2012/29/EU.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 14 and recital 15a (new).

PE658.738v01-00 250/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




(a) the third-country national's physical state or mental capacity;

deleted

Or. nl

Justification

The third-country national's physical state or mental capacity was assessed earlier in the procedure. In the past, specific mention of these details after proceedings were terminated has led to orchestrated repatriation incidents. It leads to an inefficient asylum system and a less equitable treatment of third-country nationals. The amendment prevents a carousel of procedures from standing in the way of an effective return policy, as expressed in recital 3.

Amendment 566Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Hilde Vautmans, Abir Al-Sahlani



12 Return and removal of unaccompanied minors

12 Return and removal of unaccompanied children

Or. en

Justification

The Children Rights Intergroup introduces additional safeguards to ensure that the best interests of the child are always the primary consideration as part of return procedures involving children, irrespective of whether they are unaccompanied, separated or accompanied by their families.


AM\1214327EN.docx 251/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




12 Return and removal of minors

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is linked to the amendments on Article 20.





12 Return and removal of minors

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked amendments tabled to recital 40.




1. Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor, assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return shall be granted with due consideration being given to the best

deleted

PE658.738v01-00 252/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

interests of the child.

Or. nl

Justification

It is in the minor's interest to return as soon as possible to his or her home country, where the minor will be under the responsibility of the government of his or her home country. This amendment is necessary in order to achieve an effective return policy, as expressed in recital 3.




1. Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor, assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return shall be granted with due consideration being given to the best interests of the child.

1. As soon as possible after the minor's identification, and in any case before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of the minor, Member States shall carry out a best interests assessment, to identify whether return is in the child's best interests whether he or she is within the family or is unaccompanied or separated child. In cases where return is identified as serving the child's best interests, specific and appropriate implementation measures shall be put in place. Assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return, including trained care givers as well as legal and linguistic assistance, shall be granted with due consideration being given to the best interests of the child.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40.

AM\1214327EN.docx 253/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Amendment 571Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei




1. Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor, assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities - including child protection officers for the entire duration of the process - enforcing return shall be granted with due consideration being given to the best interests of the child. Prior the decision to remove an unaccompanied child Member States shall also take into consideration the legitimate and stable ties the child has developed in the Member States, including the attendance to school.

Or. en

Justification






1. Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor, Member States shall, as quickly as possible, take all the measures required to identify the child’s family members. Assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return shall be

PE658.738v01-00 254/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

granted with due consideration being given to the best interests of the child.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment relates to the best interests of the child, which permeate the Directive as a whole. For example, it is closely linked to and complements Amendment 23 and recital 43.

Amendment 573Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Olivier Chastel, Hilde Vautmans, Dragoş Tudorache, Michal Šimečka, Fabienne Keller




1. Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor, assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return shall be granted and the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration and the guardian or legal representative who is appointed to assist the unaccompanied minor shall be consulted.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment made to Article 14 on return management in which particular attention should be given to vulnerable groups, in particular to children. This amendment strengthens safeguards for the rights of children and is in line with the EP position in other files, such as in CEAS and as already partially agreed in trilogues on these files.



AM\1214327EN.docx 255/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Article 12 – paragraph 1



1. Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor, assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return shall be granted, in the presence of the appointed guardian and with due consideration being given to the best interests of the child.

Or. it

Justification

Amendment needed because it is intrinsically linked to the amendments made to the articles on the treatment of unaccompanied minors in this Directive and to other texts covered by the reform of the CEAS as adopted by the European Parliament in the previous legislature.




(1) Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor, assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return shall be granted with due consideration being given to the best interests of the child.

(1) Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor, assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return shall be granted with due consideration being given to the best interests of the child and special care for the child.

Or. ro



PE658.738v01-00 256/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN



1. Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of a minor, assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return shall be granted with due consideration being given to the best interests of the child.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is linked to the amendments on Article 20.




2. Before removing an unaccompanied minor from the territory of a Member State, the authorities of that Member State shall be satisfied that he or she will be returned to a member of his or her family, a nominated guardian or adequate reception facilities in the State of return.

deleted

Or. nl

Justification

The situation in the home country is the responsibility of the government of the home country. The home country also knows best who the family is or who can be designated as the guardian. This amendment is necessary in order to achieve an effective return policy, as expressed in recital 3. The original text imposes conditions which a Member State cannot meet or which are dependent on the good will of third countries.


AM\1214327EN.docx 257/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




2. Before removing an unaccompanied minor from the territory of a Member State, the authorities of that Member State shall be satisfied that he or she will be returned to a member of his or her family, a nominated guardian or adequate reception facilities in the State of return and shall conduct a thorough follow-up to ensure the child best interest is fully respected. When the return is deemed in the best interest of the child, Member States shall ensure the child receives appropriate assistance.

Or. en

Justification






2. Before returning an unaccompanied minor or separated minor from the territory of a Member State, the authorities of that Member State shall be satisfied that he or she will be returned to a member of his or her family and provide for appropriate transfer if care and custodial arrangements that are adequate and appropriate for the individual minor, his/her parents and his/her customary

PE658.738v01-00 258/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

primary caregiver.

Or. en

Justification





2a. Member States shall provide minors and families with documentation indicating they are in an ongoing return procedure and that both of them, including legal or customary primary caregivers, shall not be subject to detention.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 28 and 40. Detention of minors is never in their best interests. A ban on detention of minors should therefore be imposed to protect minors. The concept of the best interests of the child also entails that parents or legal or customary primary care giver should never be detained either.




2a. Unaccompanied children shall be assisted by a guardian throughout the entire process and the best interest of the

AM\1214327EN.docx 259/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

child shall be the primary consideration in all decisions.

Or. en

Justification

In order to ensure that the best interests of the child are always the primary consideration, a guardian for separated and unaccompanied children should be appointed. This amendment is based on the FRA Handbook on Guardianship for children deprived of parental care, p.26 et seq.




2b. Member States shall ensure that an independent and qualified guardian with the necessary expertise and training who could ensure that the best interests of the child are taken into consideration is appointed to assist unaccompanied and separated children. To that end, the guardian shall be involved in the procedure to ensure that returns solely occur for the child if it is in his or her best interests.

Or. en

Justification




PE658.738v01-00 260/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


2c. Return and reintegration assistance shall be granted to all minors and their families.

Or. en

Justification





Article 13 deletedEntry ban

1.Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban:(a) if no period for voluntary departure has been granted, or(b) if the obligation to return has not been complied with.In other cases return decisions may be accompanied by an entry ban.2. Member States may impose an entry ban, which does not accompany a return decision, to a third-country national who has been illegally staying in the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and taking into account the principle of proportionality.

AM\1214327EN.docx 261/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

3. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case and shall not in principle exceed five years. It may however exceed five years if the third-country national represents a serious threat to public policy, public security or national security.4.Member States shall consider withdrawing or suspending an entry ban where a third-country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued in accordance with paragraph 1, second subparagraph, can demonstrate that he or she has left the territory of a Member State in full compliance with a return decision.Victims of trafficking in human beings who have been granted a residence permit pursuant to Council Directive 2004/81/EC28 shall not be subject of an entry ban without prejudice to paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (b), and provided that the third-country national concerned does not represent a threat to public policy, public security or national security.Member States may refrain from issuing, withdraw or suspend an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons.Member States may withdraw or suspend an entry ban in individual cases or certain categories of cases for other reasons.5. Where a Member State is considering issuing a residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay to a third-country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued by another Member State, it shall first consult the Member State having issued the entry ban in accordance with Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 2018/XXX29 .6. Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall apply without prejudice to the right to international

PE658.738v01-00 262/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

protection, as defined in point (a) of Article 2 of Directive 2011/95/EU, in the Member States._________________28 Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 19).29 Regulation (EU) 2018/… of the European Parliament and of the Council of […] on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of border checks, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, and amending and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 [adoption pending].

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part


Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban:

Return decisions may be accompanied by an entry ban:

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is related to amendments on Article 9.

Amendment 586Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei

AM\1214327EN.docx 263/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Proposal for a directiveArticle 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b


(b) if the obligation to return has not been complied with.

(b) if the obligation to return has not been complied with. In the case of children return decision shall not be accompanied by an entry ban.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 14 and 28 and Article 9 relating to voluntary departure and recital 25 relating to entry bans by the Rapporteur. The Children Rights Intergroup is of the view that, in particular in cases involving children, imposing entry bans would be disproportionate.




2. Member States may impose an entry ban, which does not accompany a return decision, to a third-country national who has been illegally staying in the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and taking into account the principle of proportionality.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Such entry bans upon exit will discourage certain third country nationals to leave the territory of a Member States.

PE658.738v01-00 264/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN





deleted

Or. en





2. Member States shall impose an entry ban to a third-country national who has been illegally staying in the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399.

Or. fr

AM\1214327EN.docx 265/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Amendment 590Milan Uhrík




2. Member States shall impose an entry ban, which does not accompany a return decision, to a third-country national who has been illegally staying in the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399.

Or. sk





2. Member States may impose an entry ban, which does not accompany a return decision, to a third-country national who has been illegally staying in the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case.

Or. fr

PE658.738v01-00 266/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




3. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case and shall not in principle exceed five years. It may however exceed five years if the third-country national represents a serious threat to public policy, public security or national security.

3. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case, up to a maximum of five years. It may however exceed five years if the third-country national represents a serious threat to public policy, public security or national security where this has been duly proven either by a conviction or by other objective elements that may be deduced from the circumstances of the case.

Or. it

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to the amendment proposed by the Commission to paragraph 2 of Article 13a in the light of the fact that the authorities are given the power to extend the entry ban also in cases of checks on the external borders.





3. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case and shall not in principle exceed ten years. It may however exceed ten years if the third-country national represents a serious threat to public policy, public security or national security or has been convicted of an offence which is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at

AM\1214327EN.docx 267/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

least three years.

Or. en

Justification

The addition of this sentence clarifies that also a criminal act that amounts to a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years for the purposes of this Directive should not go without consequences for the length of the entry ban for that person. Same applies to other parts of this Directive where this sentence is used. As the EC proposal is adding the risk to public policy, public security or national security throughout the proposal, it is important to add this specification.





3. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case and shall not in principle exceed five years. It may however exceed five years if the third-country national represents a genuine and serious threat to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. en




3. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case and shall not in principle exceed five years. It may however exceed five years if the third-

3. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case and shall in principle be at least twenty years. It may however exceed twenty years if the

PE658.738v01-00 268/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

country national represents a serious threat to public policy, public security or national security.

third-country national represents a serious threat to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. nl

Justification

The carousel of applications must be stopped. Nationals of third countries should know that they have to build their future in their own country. This will strengthen their commitment to reintegration. The text proposed by the Commission contradicts the wording of recital 3 on an effective return policy.




Member States shall consider withdrawing or suspending an entry ban where a third-country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued in accordance with paragraph 1, second subparagraph, can demonstrate that he or she has left the territory of a Member State in full compliance with a return decision.

deleted

Or. nl

Justification

Obedience to a return decision cannot in itself give a right to re-entry. This creates the carousel of applications. The text proposed by the Commission contradicts the wording of recital 3 on an effective return policy.



AM\1214327EN.docx 269/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




Member States shall make the withdrawal or suspension of an entry ban conditional upon the third-country national or other person or liable entity paying the charges arising from the decision, taken in accordance with Article 10(7), to establish the costs related to the expulsion of that third-country national. In such a case, the entry ban shall not be withdrawn or suspended until the third-country national or other person or liable entity has paid those charges. If the charges have not been paid by the end of the period of the entry ban, that period shall be extended until the date on which those charges become time-barred under national law.

Or. pl

Justification

Amendment linked to the amendment of Article 10.7 (new). The amendment introduces the possibility of withdrawing or suspending the entry ban, depending on the charges related to the costs of expulsion.




Victims of trafficking in human beings who have been granted a residence permit pursuant to Council Directive 2004/81/EC2828 shall not be subject of an

deleted

PE658.738v01-00 270/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

entry ban without prejudice to paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (b), and provided that the third-country national concerned does not represent a genuine and present threat to public security or national security._________________28 Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 19).

Or. nl

Justification

An allegation of trafficking in human beings does not in itself create residence rights for the alleged victims. Otherwise, candidates for immigration would have an incentive to contact traffickers in human beings or to rely on the assistance of traffickers in their asylum applications.




Victims of trafficking in human beings who have been granted a residence permit pursuant to Council Directive 2004/81/EC28 shall not be subject of an entry ban without prejudice to paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (b), and provided that the third-country national concerned does not represent a threat to public policy, public security or national security.

Victims of trafficking in human beings who have been granted a residence permit pursuant to Council Directive 2004/81/EC28 shall not be subject of an entry ban without prejudice to paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (b), and provided that the third-country national concerned does not represent a threat to public policy, public security or national security or has been convicted of an offence which is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years.

AM\1214327EN.docx 271/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

_________________ _________________28 Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 19).

28 Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 19).

Or. en

Justification

The addition of this sentence clarifies that also a criminal act that amounts to a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years for the purposes of this Directive should not go without consequences for the length of the entry ban for that person. Same applies to other parts of this Directive where this sentence is used. As the EC proposal is adding the risk to public policy, public security or national security throughout the proposal, it is important to add this specification.




5. Where a Member State is considering issuing a residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay to a third-country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued by another Member State, it shall first consult the Member State having issued the entry ban in accordance with Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 2018/XXX 29 .

5. A Member State can not issue a residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay to a third-country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued by another Member State.

_________________29 Regulation (EU) 2018/… of the European Parliament and of the Council of […] on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of border checks, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, and amending

PE658.738v01-00 272/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 [has yet to be adopted].

Or. nl

Justification

The logic of the Schengen area requires that one Member State may not overturn the re-entry ban of another Member State .




Return Management Monitoring of return procedures and reintegration in the country of return

Or. en




1. Each Member State shall set up, operate, maintain and further develop a national return management system, which shall process all the necessary information for implementing this Directive, in particular as regards the management of individual cases as well as of any return-related procedure.

1. Each Member State shall monitor return procedures and reintegration in the country of return.

Or. en

Amendment 603

AM\1214327EN.docx 273/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Dragoş Tudorache




1. Each Member State shall set up, operate, maintain and further develop a national return management system, which shall process all the necessary information for implementing this Directive, in particular as regards the management of individual cases as well as of any return-related procedure, including post-return monitoring and support to ensure sustainable returns.

Or. en





1. Each Member State shall set up, operate, maintain and further develop a national return management system, which shall process the necessary information for implementing this Directive, in particular as regards the management of individual cases as well as of any return-related procedure, including reintegration in the country of return.

Or. en



PE658.738v01-00 274/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)


1a. Member States shall ensure that individual assessments are carried out to provide tailored support to each migrant throughout the return procedure in a gender and age-sensitive, and in compliance with international law.

Or. en




1b. Legal counselling shall be provided in a language that can be understood by the third country national. It shall take place in conditions that allow migrants to ask questions and express their views freely, including their concerns.

Or. en




1c. At all stages of the procedure, it shall be possible for the third-country national concerned to avail himself or herself of existing procedures to determine and apply for residence status, including international protection

AM\1214327EN.docx 275/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

procedures, any other form of protection procedures provided by national law and other procedures that provide a status.

Or. en




2. The national system shall be set up in a way which ensures technical compatibility allowing for communication with the central system established in accordance with Article 50 of Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation].

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 609Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Olivier Chastel, Fabienne Keller



2. The national system shall be set up in a way which ensures technical compatibility allowing for communication with the central system established in accordance with Article 50 of Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation].

2. The national system shall be set up in a way which ensures technical compatibility allowing for communication with the central system established in accordance with Article 50 of Regulation (EU) …/…[EBCG Regulation] and in full compliance with all relevant EU data protection law, in particular the GDPR and the Law Enforcement Directive. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act to establish the specific legal framework for this central system and the communication with this system,

PE658.738v01-00 276/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

including clearly identifying the purposes of the processing via this centralised system and of the categories of personal data to be processed for each of these purposes.

Or. en

Justification

The current Commission proposal is quite unclear, more clarity is needed, along the lines of the opinion of the EDPS on this recast proposal.




Member States shall establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national legislation, for the purpose of supporting the return of illegally staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130.

Member States shall decide for themselves whether to establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national legislation, for the purpose of supporting the return of illegally staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130.

_________________ _________________30 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

30 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

Or. nl

Justification

This is a matter of national sovereignty.

AM\1214327EN.docx 277/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




Member States shall establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national legislation, for the purpose of supporting the return of illegally staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130 .

Member States shall establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national legislation, for the purpose of supporting the return of irregularly staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130 .



Or. en

Justification





3.Member States shall establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national legislation, for the purpose of supporting

3.Member States shall establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national provisions, for the purpose of supporting

PE658.738v01-00 278/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

the return of illegally staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130 .

the return of illegally staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130 .

_________________ _________________30 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1 p. 1.

30 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1 p. 1.

Or. fr




Member States shall establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national legislation, for the purpose of supporting the return of illegally staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130 .

Member States may establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national legislation, for the purpose of supporting the return of illegally staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130 .



Or. en

Amendment 614

AM\1214327EN.docx 279/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Maite Pagazaurtundúa



Such assistance may include support for reintegration in the third country of return.

Such assistance shall include support for reintegration in the third country of return which follow up on personal reintegration plans of returnees where legally and practically possible, to ensure sustainable returns, especially taking into account the specific circumstances of each third country national, and giving full attention to the cases of vulnerable persons. Member States shall ensure a follow up of these plans by dedicated and independent monitoring bodies.

Or. en




Such assistance may include support for reintegration in the third country of return.

Such assistance shall include support for reintegration in the third country of return.

Or. en




Such assistance may include support for Such assistance shall include support for

PE658.738v01-00 280/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

reintegration in the third country of return. reintegration in the third country of return.

Or. en


Proposal for a directiveArticle 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)


National programmes shall include a continuum of care for the third country national throughout all stages of return and reintegration process. This shall include the provision of adequate information on conditions in countries of return prior tot he departure, provided by independent or UN bodies in understandable language, appropriate transfer of care for persons in vulnerable situations and custodial arrangements for unaccompanied and separated children and their parents. National programmes shall include mechanism for the appropriate transfer of legal assistance and access to justice and redress mechanisms, access to relevant national administrative and criminal proceedings, in particular in accordance with Directives 2009/52/EC, 2011/36/EY and 2012/29/EU, throughout the return procedure, including measures to ensure that readmission agreements include access to justice after return to a third country.

Or. en



AM\1214327EN.docx 281/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


The granting of such assistance, including its kind and extent, shall be subject to the cooperation of the third-country national concerned with the competent authorities of the Member States as provided for in Article 7 of this Directive.

deleted

Or. en





deleted

Or. en

Justification

This deletion is in line with the amendments on Article 7.




The granting of such assistance, including its kind and extent, shall be subject to the cooperation of the third-country national

The granting of such assistance, including its kind and extent, shall be subject to the cooperation of the third-country national

PE658.738v01-00 282/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

concerned with the competent authorities of the Member States as provided for in Article 7 of this Directive.

concerned with the competent authorities of the Member States as provided for in Article 7 of this Directive, and may be subject to the conditions and grounds for exclusion laid down in national provisions, particularly with regard to reintegration assistance in the third country of origin. The assistance referred to in this paragraph shall not be granted as a rule to a third-country national who has already benefited from reintegration assistance provided by a Member State.

Or. fr





The granting of such assistance, including its kind and extent, may be subject to the cooperation of the third-country national concerned with the competent authorities of the Member States as provided for in Article 7 of this Directive, where the non-cooperation of the third country national gives substantial reason to assume that the third country national will not cooperate with the reintegration support in the future.

Or. en



AM\1214327EN.docx 283/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



The granting of such assistance, including its kind and extent, shall be subject to the cooperation of the third-country national concerned with the competent authorities of the Member States as provided for in Article 7 of this Directive. Assistance granted under this paragraph shall only be granted once.

Or. en




Return decisions and, if issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal shall be issued in writing and give reasons in fact and in law as well as information about available legal remedies.

Member States shall provide a written and oral translations of the main elements of decisions related to return, as referred to in paragraph 1, including information on the available legal remedies in a language that the third-country national understands.

Or. en

Justification





The information on reasons in fact may be limited where national law allows for the right to information to be restricted, in

deleted

PE658.738v01-00 284/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

particular in order to safeguard national security, defence, public security and for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences.

Or. en

Justification





2. Member States shall provide, upon request, a written or oral translation of the main elements of decisions related to return, as referred to in paragraph 1, including information on the available legal remedies in a language the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand.

2. Member States shall provide a written and oral translation of the main elements of decisions related to return, as referred to in paragraph 1, including information on the available legal remedies in a language the third-country national understands.

Or. en

Justification

In order to ensure coherence in the proposal, elements concerning provision of information have been moved from article 15 to article 7.




2. Member States shall provide, upon request, a written or oral translation of the main elements of decisions related to

2. Member States shall provide a written or oral translation of the main elements of decisions related to return, as

AM\1214327EN.docx 285/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

return, as referred to in paragraph 1, including information on the available legal remedies in a language the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand.

referred to in paragraph 1, including information on the available legal remedies in a language the third-country national understands.

Or. en

Justification

Access to understandable information is crucial for third country nationals especially to prepare their return. This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments on article 7.




3. Member States may decide not to apply paragraph 2 to third country nationals who have illegally entered the territory of a Member State and who have not subsequently obtained an authorisation or a right to stay in that Member State.

deleted

In such cases decisions related to return, as referred to in paragraph 1, shall be given by means of a standard form as set out under national legislation.Member States shall make available generalised information sheets explaining the main elements of the standard form in at least five of those languages which are most frequently used or understood by illegal migrants entering the Member State concerned.

Or. en

Justification

All migrants should have access to the information regarding their return and the related

PE658.738v01-00 286/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

procedures. This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments on article 7.




Member States may decide not to apply paragraph 2 to third country nationals who have illegally entered the territory of a Member State and who have not subsequently obtained an authorisation or a right to stay in that Member State.

deleted

Or. en




In such cases decisions related to return, as referred to in paragraph 1, shall be given by means of a standard form as set out under national legislation.

deleted

Or. en




Member States shall make available generalised information sheets explaining

deleted

AM\1214327EN.docx 287/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

the main elements of the standard form in at least five of those languages which are most frequently used or understood by illegal migrants entering the Member State concerned.

Or. en




Member States shall make available generalised information sheets explaining the main elements of the standard form in at least five of those languages which are most frequently used or understood by illegal migrants entering the Member State concerned.

Member States shall make available generalised information sheets explaining the main elements of the standard form in at least five major world languages.

Or. nl

Justification

It is impossible for a Member State to predict which country will become a major supplier of refugees. Third-country nationals cannot, therefore, assert any rights here either. The amendment creates a predictable workload and therefore an efficient asylum policy based on clear, transparent and fair rules, as expressed in recital 4.




16 Remedies 16 Remedy

Or. nl

PE658.738v01-00 288/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Justification

In order to limit the duration of proceedings and prevent a carousel of appeals, there should be only one appeal.




The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to appeal against or seek review of decisions related to return, as referred to in Article 15(1), before a competent judicial authority.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 634Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Fabienne Keller



The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to appeal against or seek review of decisions related to return, as referred to in Article 15(1), before a competent judicial authority.

The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to appeal against or seek review of decisions related to return, as referred to in Article 15(1), before a competent judicial authority. Member states shall allocate to judicial authorities the capacity required for the proper implementation of this directive, including human resources and training, so as to guarantee the quality and expediency of judicial review

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 289/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




The third-country national concerned shall be granted the right to appeal before a single level of jurisdiction against the return decision where that decision is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in accordance with Regulation EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] that was subject to an effective judicial review in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation.

deleted

Or. en





deleted

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 290/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Justification

The shadow rapporteur considers that it's not the aim of this recast to modify the organisation of the jurisdictions in the member states and to have different rules for asylum seekers whom claim has been rejected and irregular migrants

Amendment 637Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Michal Šimečka




The third-country national concerned can be granted the right to appeal only before a single level of jurisdiction against the return decision where that decision is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in accordance with Regulation EU) …/…[Asylum Procedure Regulation] that was subject to an effective judicial review in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation, only where the full scope of the principle of non-refoulement under European and international law is individually assessed in the asylum procedure.

Or. en




The third-country national concerned shall be granted the right to appeal before one level of jurisdiction only against the return decision where that decision is based on a decision rejecting an application for

The third-country national concerned shall be granted the right to appeal before no more than one level of jurisdiction only against the return decision,with no possibility of resumption of proceedings,

AM\1214327EN.docx 291/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] that was subject to an effective judicial review in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation.

where that decision is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] that was subject to an effective judicial review in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation.

Or. nl

Justification

Carousels of appeals should be stopped.





To comply with the principle of an effective remedy, the third-country national concerned shall be granted the right to appeal before a single level of jurisdiction against the return decision where that decision is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in accordance with Regulation EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] that was subject to an effective judicial review in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation.

Or. en



PE658.738v01-00 292/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the set period, during the examination of the appeal, where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. Should a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision be lodged, and in all other cases, the enforcement of the return decision shall not be suspended unless a court or tribunal decides otherwise taking into due account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.

The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing the appeal, during the examination of the appeal and until the decision on the appeal has been notified to the applicant.

Or. en





The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing the appeal at first instance. Should a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision be lodged, and in all other cases, the enforcement of the return decision shall not be suspended.

AM\1214327EN.docx 293/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Or. fr





The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the set period, during the examination of the appeal, where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. The possibility of further appeal against an appeal decision is not necessary.

Or. nl

Justification

The endless procedures usually only serve to engineer a residence permit based on social ties. Persistence thus leads to unfair results for various candidates for asylum, plus an enormous financial and administrative cost for the Member State.

Amendment 643Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Michal Šimečka



The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during

The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during

PE658.738v01-00 294/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the set period, during the examination of the appeal, where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. Should a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision be lodged, and in all other cases, the enforcement of the return decision shall not be suspended unless a court or tribunal decides otherwise taking into due account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.

the period for bringing an appeal against that decision during the examination of the appeal and until the decision on appeal has been notified to the third country national. An appeal against a return decision shall have an automatic suspensive effect except in cases where judicial authorities have assessed the full scope of the principle of non-refoulement under European and international law and have found that this principle does not risk to be breached. The enforcement of the return decision can also be suspended when a court or tribunal decides to do so, taking into due account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.

Or. en

Justification

The suspensive effect of an appeal against a return decision is crucial, as otherwise there could be an irreversible situation with grave fundamental rights consequences. The only exception to this rule is if the full assessment of the principle of non-refoulement has already been carried out by a judicial authority. Furthermore, a court or tribunal should have the independence to suspend the enforcement of the return decision on other grounds.




The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the set period, during the examination of the appeal, where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. Should a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision be lodged, and in all other cases,

The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing an appeal against such decision, during the examination of the appeal, and until the decision on the appeal has been notified to the applicant including where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. An appeal against a return decision shall have an automatic suspensive effect, this shall

AM\1214327EN.docx 295/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

the enforcement of the return decision shall not be suspended unless a court or tribunal decides otherwise taking into due account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.

include instances where there are pending cases before a criminal court, in order to ensure access to justice for both victims and suspects.

Or. en





The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the set period, during the examination of the appeal, where there may be a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. Should a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision be lodged, and in all other cases, the enforcement of the return decision shall not be suspended unless a court or tribunal decides otherwise taking into due account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.

Or. en




Member States shall ensure that a deleted

PE658.738v01-00 296/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

decision on the request for temporary suspension of the enforcement of a return decision is taken within 48 hours from the lodging of such a request by the third-country national concerned. In individual cases involving complex issues of fact or law, the time-limits set out in this paragraph may be extended, as appropriate, by the competent judicial authority.

Or. en




Member States shall ensure that a decision on the request for temporary suspension of the enforcement of a return decision is taken within 48 hours from the lodging of such a request by the third-country national concerned. In individual cases involving complex issues of fact or law, the time-limits set out in this paragraph may be extended, as appropriate, by the competent judicial authority.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

The remedy has always a suspensive effect. Thus, it's not necessary to have a decision on the suspension.



AM\1214327EN.docx 297/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


Where no relevant new elements or findings have arisen or have been presented by the third-country national concerned which significantly modify the specific circumstances of the individual case, the first and the second subparagraphs of this paragraph shall not apply where:

deleted

(a) the reason for temporary suspension referred thereto was assessed in the context of a procedure carried out in application of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] and was subject to an effective judicial review in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation;(b) the return decision is the consequence of the decision on ending the legal stay that has been taken following such procedures.

Or. en





deleted

(a) the reason for temporary suspension referred thereto was assessed in the context of a procedure carried out in application of Regulation (EU) …/…

PE658.738v01-00 298/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

[Asylum Procedure Regulation] and was subject to an effective judicial review in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation;(b) the return decision is the consequence of the decision on ending the legal stay that has been taken following such procedures.

Or. en

Justification

This deletion is the consequence of the amendment on article 16, paragraph 3, subparagraph 1. The remedy has an automatic suspensive effect.





Where no relevant new elements or findings have arisen or have been presented by the third-country national concerned which modify the specific circumstances of the individual case, the first and the second subparagraphs of this paragraph shall not apply where:

Or. en

Justification

Appeals should always have a suspensive effect. Having to assess whether new elements have arisen and/or whether suspensive is required or not would again burden Member States’ authorities with having to make that separate assessment. The introduction of the requirement of ‘significant modification’ places too high of a burden on the judicial authorities and risks that individual cases are not properly assessed, thereby producing potential irreversible violations of non-refoulement.

Amendment 651

AM\1214327EN.docx 299/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli



Member States shall establish reasonable time limits and other necessary rules to ensure the exercise of the right to an effective remedy pursuant to this Article.

An appeal against a return decision must be lodged within 30 days of its notification to the person concerned. Member States shall establish other necessary rules to ensure the exercise of the right to an effective remedy pursuant to this Article.

Or. it





Member States shall establish a time limit not exceeding five (5) days and other necessary rules to ensure the exercise of the right to an effective remedy pursuant to this Article.

Or. pl





Member States shall establish reasonable and sufficient time limits and other necessary rules to ensure the exercise of the right to an effective remedy pursuant to this Article.

PE658.738v01-00 300/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Or. en




Member States shall grant a period not exceeding five days to lodge an appeal against a return decision when such a decision is the consequence of a final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

deleted

Or. en





Member States shall grant a period at least fifteen days to lodge an appeal against a return decision.

Or. en

Justification

In light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to an effective remedy in article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (i.e. Jabari v Turkey, para. 40; Muminov v Russia, para. 90), an automatic application of short time- limits for

AM\1214327EN.docx 301/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

submitting appeals may be at variance with the protection from refoulement

Amendment 656Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa




Member States shall grant a period between ten and fifteen days to lodge an appeal against a return decision when such a decision is the consequence of a final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

Or. en

Justification

The proposed period by the Commission is too short to guarantee the full exercise of the right to lodge an appeal. A period between 10 and 15 days to lodge an appeal is more reasonable and realistic.





Member States shall grant a period not exceeding 15 days to lodge an appeal against a return decision when such a decision is the consequence of a final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

PE658.738v01-00 302/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Or. it





Member States shall grant a period not exceeding three days to lodge an appeal against a return decision when such a decision is the consequence of a final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

Or. fr





Member States shall grant a period not exceeding two days to lodge an appeal against a return decision when such a decision is the consequence of a final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to Amendment 12, and supplements it in order to speed up the operation of the courts and tribunals and streamline the return procedure.

AM\1214327EN.docx 303/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




4a. Member States may provide for administrative review proceedings prior to an appeal before a court or tribunal in accordance with paragraph 1, provided that the administrative review does not adversely affect the efficiency of the remedy.

Or. fr




5. The third-country national concerned shall have the possibility to obtain legal advice, representation and, where necessary, linguistic assistance.

5. The third-country national concerned shall have the possibility to obtain legal advice, representation and linguistic assistance.

Or. en

Justification




PE658.738v01-00 304/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


6. Member States shall ensure that the necessary legal assistance and/or representation is granted on request free of charge in accordance with relevant national legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and may provide that such free legal assistance and/or representation is subject to conditions as set out in Article 15(3) to (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC.

6. Member States shall ensure that the necessary legal assistance and/or representation is granted on request free of charge in accordance with relevant national legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and may provide that such free legal assistance and/or representation is subject to conditions as set out in Article 15(3) to (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC. Recognised refugees may be asked to reimburse the cost of legal and linguistic assistance to the Member State.

Or. nl

Justification

The legal costs of free legal aid put enormous pressure on the budget of the justice department. It does not seem unreasonable that those who have benefited directly from this system should compensate the government for it. Refunding the costs of legal and linguistic assistance after recognition ensures fair treatment of all cases, as stated in recital 4.




6. Member States shall ensure that the necessary legal assistance and/or representation is granted on request free of charge in accordance with relevant national legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and may provide that such free legal assistance and/or representation is subject to conditions as set out in Article15(3) to (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC.

6. Member States shall ensure that legal assistance and/or representation is granted on request free of charge in accordance with relevant national legislation or rules regarding legal aid. Member States shall inform the third country nationals about the possibility to forward such request.

Or. en

Justification


AM\1214327EN.docx 305/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




6. Member States shall ensure that the necessary legal assistance and/or representation is granted on request free of charge in accordance with relevant national legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and may provide that such free legal assistance and/or representation is subject to conditions as set out in Article 15(3) to (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC.

6. Member States shall ensure that the necessary legal assistance and/or representation is granted on express request free of charge in accordance with relevant national legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and may provide that such free legal assistance and/or representation is subject to conditions as set out in Article 15(3) to (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC.

Or. fr




6. Member States shall ensure that the necessary legal assistance and/or representation is granted on request free of charge in accordance with relevant national legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and may provide that such free legal assistance and/or representation is subject to conditions as set out in Article15(3) to (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC.

6. Member States shall ensure that the necessary legal assistance and/or representation is granted free of charge in accordance with relevant national legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and may provide that such free legal assistance and/or representation is subject to conditions as set out in Article15(3) to (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC.

Or. en

Justification

Access to legal aid is crucial to exercise the right of an effective remedy. This amendment is

PE658.738v01-00 306/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

linked to recital 21, Article 7 and Article 14.




1a. The first paragraph shall also apply to third-country nationals who are staying irregularly and in the respect of whom it is not or it has not been possible to implement a return decision.

Or. en

Justification





1a. The principles underpinning 1 a. to d. do not exclude this being achieved in police custody.

Or. nl

Justification

In view of the large number of people who abscond, preference should be given in most cases to detention pending repatriation. This amendment is in line with amendment 15 for recital 18 and amendment 17 for recital 22. Police custody cannot be excluded as a means of providing, inter alia , accommodation, medical care and food.

Amendment 668

AM\1214327EN.docx 307/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




2. Member States shall provide the persons referred to in paragraph 1 with a written confirmation in accordance with national legislation that the period for voluntary departure has been extended in accordance with Article 9(2) or that the return decision will temporarily not be enforced.

2. Member States shall provide the persons referred to in paragraph 1 and 1a with a written confirmation in accordance with national legislation that the period for voluntary departure has been extended in accordance with Article 9(2) or that the return decision will temporarily not be enforced or it has not been possible to implement a return decision.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 17.1 (a)




[...] deleted

Or. en




Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case, Member States may keep in

Member States shall never apply coercive measures.

PE658.738v01-00 308/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, in particular when:

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 18 and to recitals 27 and 28.




Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case, Member States may keep in detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, in particular when:

Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case, Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, when:

Or. en




Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case, Member States may keep in detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the

Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case, Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out

AM\1214327EN.docx 309/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

removal process, in particular when: the removal process when:

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as inextricably linked to other amendments tabled to this Article. The Commission proposal deleted the word "only". Rather, it would be important to have an exhaustive list of grounds for detention, to ensure that detention is only used as a matter of last resort and in well specified cases.




Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case, Member States may keep in detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, in particular when:

Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case, Member States shall keep in detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process when:

Or. en

Justification

The Article is not correctly aligned with recital 28 on this point where it is explicitly stated that the person under these condition should be kept in detention.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a


(a) there is a risk of absconding determined in accordance with Article 6;

deleted

PE658.738v01-00 310/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is coherent with the deletion of Article 6.




(b) the third-country national concerned avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process; or

deleted

Or. en

Justification

This is coherent with the amendment tabled to article 18(1)


Proposal for a directiveArticle 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c


(c) the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 677Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani


AM\1214327EN.docx 311/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



deleted

Or. en

Justification

This newly proposed ground by the Commission is not specific enough, as there are no common EU definitions of public policy, public security or national security, and such cases should not be dealt with EU returns law but under existing criminal law or administrative law.





(c) the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security on the basis of a conviction or elements that substantiate the assessment that they represent a danger to the public

Or. it





(c) the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security or has been convicted of an offence which is punishable by a maximum term of

PE658.738v01-00 312/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

imprisonment of at least three years.

Or. en

Justification

The addition of this sentence clarifies that also a criminal act that amounts to a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years for the purposes of this Directive should be a ground for detention of that person. Same applies to other parts of this Directive where this sentence is used.





(c) the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security, in particular where the third-country national is convicted of a serious crime.

Or. en





(c) the third-country national concerned poses a genuine and present risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. en

Amendment 682

AM\1214327EN.docx 313/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




All grounds for detention shall be laid down in national law.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

It's up to the Member states to decide which provisions they want to adopt in their national law.




All grounds for detention shall be laid down in national law.

In other cases Member States may keep in detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process.All grounds for detention shall be laid down in national law.

Or. en

Justification

Logical consequence of my amendment on the first paragraph of this article, in order to clarify when detention should be done and when this may be done.



PE658.738v01-00 314/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


Any detention shall be for as short a period as possible and only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.

Any detention shall be a measure of last resort to be applied when measures other than detention are not available, and for as short a period as possible and only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.

Or. it

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to the amendment proposed by the Commission to paragraph (c) of Article 18.




Any detention shall be for as short a period as possible and only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.

Detention shall be maintained for at least as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.

Or. fr


Proposal for a directiveArticle 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 a (new)


Detention shall never be used for unaccompanied minors or families with minors.

AM\1214327EN.docx 315/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Or. it

Justification



Proposal for a directiveArticle 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 b (new)


The maximum period of detention must be between three and six months; it may be extended once only for a maximum period of a further six months.

Or. it




Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities.

Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities at the same time as the return decision.

Or. nl

Justification

A situation in which different judges are caught up in dealing with each individual decision more than once should be avoided. This amendment is necessary in order to achieve an effective return policy, as expressed in recital 3. The original text leaves open the possibility of multiple proceedings.

Amendment 689

PE658.738v01-00 316/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




(b) or grant the third-country national concerned the right to take proceedings by means of which the lawfulness of detention shall be subject to a speedy judicial review to be decided on as speedily as possible after the launch of the relevant proceedings. In such a case Member States shall immediately inform the third-country national concerned about the possibility of taking such proceedings.

(b) or grant the third-country national concerned the right to take proceedings by means of which the lawfulness of detention shall be subject to a speedy judicial review to be decided on as speedily as possible after the launch of the relevant proceedings. In such a case Member States shall immediately inform the third-country national concerned about the possibility of taking such proceedings, and provide to this purpose for legal and linguistic assistance, free of charge.

Or. en

Justification





3. In every case, detention shall be reviewed at reasonable intervals of time either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. In the case of prolonged detention periods, reviews shall be subject to the supervision of a judicial authority.

deleted

Or. fr

AM\1214327EN.docx 317/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification





3. In every case, detention shall be reviewed at reasonable intervals of time either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. In the case of prolonged detention periods, reviews shall be subject to the supervision of a judicial authority.

3. If a Member State decides to apply detention, in every case, detention shall be reviewed at reasonable and regular intervals of time either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. Reviews shall be subject to the supervision of a judicial authority.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to other amendments tabled to this article and to recitals 27 and 28.




5. Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal. Each Member State shall set a maximum period of detention of not less than three months and not more than six months.

5. If a Member State chooses to apply detention, the Member State shall set a limited period of detention, which shall not exceed two weeks.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 318/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN





5. Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal. Each Member State shall set a maximum period of their choosing.

Or. fr





5. Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal. Each Member State shall set a limited period of detention of maximum 2 months.

Or. en

Justification

According to NGOs and international organizations, it's absolutely not proven that the longer the detention is, the higher the effective returns rates are. According to EPRS substitute impact assessment, “In France 80% of the removals occurred before the twenty-fifth day in detention. Hence, it is often not necessary to prolong detention because it does not contribute to removal. Extending detention under such circumstances is not cost-effective”.

AM\1214327EN.docx 319/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN





5. Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal. Each Member State shall set a maximum period of detention of not less than three months and not more than 12 months.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment seeks to cover situations such as those referred to in Amendment 5, which it supplements. It is also closely linked to Amendment 2, as some return procedures cannot be completed because the maximum period of detention is too short.





5. Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal. Each Member State shall set a limited period of detention which may not exceed three months.

Or. en

Justification

As various sources, including the EP impact assessment, have shown, ever longer detention

PE658.738v01-00 320/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

periods have a limited impact on returns effectively happening. In light of the severe risks to human rights violations, detention can be imposed, but only accompanied by judicial review.




6. Member States may not extend the period referred to in paragraph 5 except for a limited period not exceeding a further twelve months in accordance with national law in cases where regardless of all their reasonable efforts the removal operation is likely to last longer owing to:

deleted

(a) a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or(b) delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries.

Or. fr

Justification





6. Member States may not extend the period referred to in paragraph 5 except for a limited period not exceeding a further twelve months in accordance with national law in cases where regardless of all their reasonable efforts the removal

deleted

AM\1214327EN.docx 321/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

operation is likely to last longer owing to:(a) a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or(b) delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to other amendments tabled to this article and to recitals 27 and 28.





6. Member States may not extend the period referred to in paragraph 5 except for two consecutive times of each a limited period not exceeding each a further 3 months in accordance with national law, and always after judicial review, in cases where regardless of all their reasonable efforts the removal operation is likely to last longer owing to:

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled on Article 18, paragraph 5. It would make possible a total detention period of up to 9 months, with the appropriate safeguards of judicial review included.



PE658.738v01-00 322/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN



6. Member States may not extend the period referred to in paragraph 5 except for a limited period not exceeding a further four months in accordance with national law in cases where regardless of all their reasonable efforts the removal operation is likely to last longer owing to:

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is linked to the amendments on Article 18 paragraph 5.




(b) delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled on Article 18, paragraph 5.




6 a. 7. Member States may detain a third-country national for a second time

AM\1214327EN.docx 323/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

despite having made use of the period provided for in paragraph 6 if, after his or her release from detention, circumstances arise which make it possible to enforce a return decision previously issued in relation to that third-country national. The new period of detention shall not exceed 30 days.

Or. pl




1. Detention shall take place as a rule in specialised detention facilities. Where a Member State cannot provide accommodation in a specialised detention facility and is obliged to resort to prison accommodation, the third-country nationals in detention shall be kept separated from ordinary prisoners.

1. If a Member State chooses to apply detention as last resort, detention shall take place as a rule in specialised, open detention facilities. The specialised detention facilities shall offer dignified conditions of detention respecting fundamental rights of the third-country nationals detained. Staff employed in the specialised detention facilities shall be properly trained and qualified. Third country nationals shall never be detained in prison accommodation or police cells.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to recital 27.



PE658.738v01-00 324/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


1. Detention shall take place as a rule in specialised detention facilities. Where a Member State cannot provide accommodation in a specialised detention facility and is obliged to resort to prison accommodation, the third-country nationals in detention shall be kept separated from ordinary prisoners.

1. Detention shall take place under specialised detention conditions, where third-country nationals in detention shall be kept separated from ordinary prisoners.

Or. en

Justification

Instead of focusing on the spatial separation of detention facilities from ordinary prison facilities, it would be more practical and effective to emphasise the need for special detention conditions compared to ordinary prison conditions. This amendment is necessary as it relates to the internal logic of the text regarding the procedures for detention as laid down in Article 18 and to avoid absconding as laid down in Article 6.




2. Third-country nationals in detention shall be allowed — on request — to establish in due time contact with legal representatives, family members and competent consular authorities.

2. Third-country nationals in detention shall be allowed — on request — to establish since the first day of detention contact with legal representatives, family members and competent consular authorities.

Or. en

Justification




AM\1214327EN.docx 325/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Article 19 – paragraph 3


3. Particular attention shall be paid to the situation of vulnerable persons. Emergency health care and essential treatment of illness shall be provided.

3. Particular attention shall be paid to the situation of persons in a vulnerable situation. Emergency health care and treatment of illness shall be promptly provided.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 38 and Article 14.




4. Relevant and competent national, international and non-governmental organisations and bodies shall have the possibility to visit detention facilities, as referred to in paragraph 1, to the extent that they are being used for detaining third-country nationals in accordance with this Chapter. Such visits may be subject to authorisation.

4. Relevant and competent national, international and non-governmental organisations and bodies, as well as journalists and members of national and European parliaments, shall have the possibility to visit detention facilities, as referred to in paragraph 1, to the extent that they are being used for detaining third-country nationals in accordance with this Chapter. Unannounced visits shall be made possible.

Or. en

Justification



PE658.738v01-00 326/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN




4. Relevant and competent national, international and non-governmental organisations and bodies shall have the possibility to visit detention facilities, as referred to in paragraph 1, to the extent that they are being used for detaining third-country nationals in accordance with this Chapter. Such visits may be subject to authorisation. Under no circumstances may such visits be restricted or prohibited.

Or. it

Justification

Access to detention facilities must always be guaranteed. This amendment is linked to amendments tabled by the rapporteur to Article 18 and to recitals 27 and 28.





4. Relevant and competent national, international organisations and bodies shall have the possibility to visit detention facilities, as referred to in paragraph 1, to the extent that they are being used for detaining third-country nationals in accordance with this Chapter. Such visits may be subject to authorisation.

Or. nl

Justification

NGOs lack any democratic legitimacy or control. Moreover, it is unclear who is appropriating the title and on what grounds, thus acquiring special prerogatives on that

AM\1214327EN.docx 327/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

basis. Control of the executive should be exercised by the legislature or by an international organisation recognised by the government of the Member State. The original text refers to relevant and competent national, international and non-governmental organisations and bodies. Non-governmental organisations do not meet the cumulative condition of relevance and competence and therefore cannot be included in this list.




5. Third-country nationals kept in detention shall be systematically provided with information which explains the rules applied in the facility and sets out their rights and obligations. Such information shall include information on their entitlement under national law to contact the organisations and bodies referred to in paragraph 4.

5. Third-country nationals kept in detention shall be systematically provided with information which explains the rules applied in the facility and sets out their rights and obligations, in a language they understand. Such information shall include information on their entitlement under national law to contact the organisations and bodies, as well as journalists and members of national and European parliaments referred to in paragraph 4.

Or. en

Justification





Article 20 deletedDetention of minors and families

1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained as a

PE658.738v01-00 328/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.2. Families detained pending removal shall be provided with separate accommodation guaranteeing adequate privacy.3. Minors in detention shall have the possibility to engage in leisure activities, including play and recreational activities appropriate to their age, and shall have, depending on the length of their stay, access to education.4. Unaccompanied minors shall as far as possible be provided with accommodation in institutions provided with personnel and facilities which take into account the needs of persons of their age.5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of minors pending removal.

Or. it

Justification





20 Detention of minors and families 20 Prohibition of detention of minors and families

Or. en

Justification


AM\1214327EN.docx 329/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN




20 Detention of minors and families 20 Minors and families

Or. en

Justification

This amendments is linked to the amendments on Article 20 paragraph 1.




1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.

1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors who are subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process shall only be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time and only after having specifically verified that no other less coercive measure is available. Young children shall be detained in specialized facilities and not be detained in a prison accommodation. By derogation of article 18, paragraph 5, Member states may include shorter periods of detention for minors in their national legislation.

Or. en

Justification

The ECHR notes that according to a well-established case-law, as a matter of principle, the confinement of young children in prison-like structures should be avoided and that only short-

PE658.738v01-00 330/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

term placement under suitable conditions could be compatible with the Convention provided that it is a measure of last resort and only after having specifically verified that no other less coercive measure is available. As the EC proposal is touching upon the grounds of detention it is important to clarify the rules and safeguards regarding minors as well.

Amendment 715Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Hilde Vautmans, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Michal Šimečka




1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall not be detained and will be provided with adequate, humane and non-custodial alternatives to detention when in the best interest of the child and where necessary to guarantee their protection.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 28. Detention of children should be abolished, as it runs inherently counter to the best interest of the child.





1. Minors and families with minors shall not be detained.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 331/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40 as well as to Article 18.





1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall not be detained.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendment tabled to recital 28. Detention of minors is never in their best interests, including when family units are available. A ban on detention of children should therefore be imposed to protect minors. The application of the concept of ‘best interests of the child’ moreover entails that parents or legal or customary primary caregivers should never be detained either. See e.g. ECtHR- Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar v. Malta, Application No. 25794/13 and 28151/13, 22 February 2017.





1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall never be detained.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 332/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Justification

The detention of minors is never in their best interests. It's sustained by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, UN Committee on Migrant Workers, UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants. Member states have the possibility to find alternatives measures such as open centres to ensure the return of unaccompanied minors, and minors with their families, after the assessment of their best interests.





1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall be repatriated as a matter of priority in order to reduce the period of detention.

Or. nl

Justification

We need to strike the right balance between an efficient asylum system and respect for the rights of those concerned. The Commission’s original text runs counter to the objectives of an efficient asylum policy as expressed in recital 3.




2. Families detained pending removal shall be provided with separate accommodation guaranteeing adequate privacy.

deleted

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 333/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification


Amendment 721Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Hilde Vautmans, Olivier Chastel, Michal Šimečka




2. Member States shall therefore establish appropriate care arrangements and accommodate minors and families with minor children. Appropriate care arrangements and reception measures for minor children and their families shall be community based, the least intrusive possible and respect the right to privacy and family life. These care arrangements should provide for personnel and facilities which take into account the needs of persons their age.Minors shall have the possibility to engage in leisure activities, including play and recreational activities appropriate to their age, and shall have, depending on the length of their stay, access to education.Unaccompanied minors shall as far as possible be provided with accommodation in institutions provided with personnel and facilities which take into account the needs of persons of their age.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 334/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 28. Instead of detention, minors and families with minor children should be provided with appropriate care arrangements.





2. Pending removal, unaccompanied and separated minors and children with their families shall be provided with adequate alternatives to detention. Minors shall not be separated from their parents or from their legal or customary primary caregivers during the procedure, through the detention or removal of a parent or a caregiver. Families shall be kept together, unless the child's safety would be at risk. This includes implementing or exploring alternatives to detention for the whole family and protecting parents from removal while the procedure is ongoing. Where needed, appropriate care and accommodation arrangements that enable children and families to live together in communities shall be implemented.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40, and Article 18.



AM\1214327EN.docx 335/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN



2. Pending removal families and unaccompanied minors shall be provided with alternative measures to detention, with separate accommodation guaranteeing adequate privacy.

Or. en

Justification

The detention of minors is never in their best interests. Member states have the possibility to find alternatives measures such as open centres to ensure the return of unaccompanied minors, and minors with their families, after the assessment of their best interests. This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments on Article 20 paragraph 1.




3. Minors in detention shall have the possibility to engage in leisure activities, including play and recreational activities appropriate to their age, and shall have, depending on the length of their stay, access to education.

deleted

Or. en

Justification


Amendment 725

PE658.738v01-00 336/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN





deleted

Or. en

Justification


Amendment 726Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Olivier Chastel, Hilde Vautmans




deleted

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 28. As children should not be detained, this provision should be deleted. These provisions are however included in the proposals for an amended Article 20(2).

Amendment 727

AM\1214327EN.docx 337/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN





3. Minors shall have the possibility to engage in leisure activities, including play and recreational activities appropriate to their age, and shall have, depending on the length of their stay, access to education.

Or. en

Justification

The detention of minors is never in their best interests. Member states have the possibility to find alternatives measures such as open centres to ensure the return of unaccompanied minors, and minors with their families, after the assessment of their best interests. This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendment on article 20 paragraph 1.

Amendment 728Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Hilde Vautmans, Olivier Chastel



4. Unaccompanied minors shall as far as possible be provided with accommodation in institutions provided with personnel and facilities which take into account the needs of persons of their age.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 28. As children should not be detained, this provision should be deleted. These provisions are however included in the proposals for an amended Article 20(2).

PE658.738v01-00 338/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Amendment 729Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Abir Al-Sahlani




deleted

Or. en

Justification






deleted

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 339/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification






4. Minors shall be provided with accommodation in institutions provided with personnel and facilities which take into account the needs of persons of their age.

Or. en

Justification





5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of minors pending removal.

deleted

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 340/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Justification






deleted

Or. en

Justification






5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of minors pending removal. They may not constitute, by themselves, an obstacle to detention.

Or. fr

AM\1214327EN.docx 341/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to Amendment 23, which it supplements.

Amendment 735Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Michal Šimečka




5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of alternatives to detention for minors pending removal.

Or. en





5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all situations.

Or. en

Justification



PE658.738v01-00 342/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN



Article 21 deletedEmergency situations

1. In situations where an exceptionally large number of third-country nationals to be returned places an unforeseen heavy burden on the capacity of the detention facilities of a Member State or on its administrative or judicial staff, such a Member State may, as long as the exceptional situation persists, decide to allow for periods for judicial review longer than those provided for under the third subparagraph of Article 18(2) and to take urgent measures in respect of the conditions of detention derogating from those set out in Articles 19(1) and 20(2).2. When resorting to such exceptional measures, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission. It shall also inform the Commission as soon as the reasons for applying these exceptional measures have ceased to exist.3. Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted as allowing Member States to derogate from their general obligation to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of their obligations under this Directive.

Or. en



AM\1214327EN.docx 343/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN


1. In situations where an exceptionally large number of third-country nationals to be returned places an unforeseen heavy burden on the capacity of the detention facilities of a Member State or on its administrative or judicial staff, such a Member State may, as long as the exceptional situation persists, decide to allow for periods for judicial review longer than those provided for under the third subparagraph of Article 18(2) and to take urgent measures in respect of the conditions of detention derogating from those set out in Articles 19(1) and 20(2).

1. In situations where an exceptionally large number of third-country nationals to be returned places an unforeseen heavy burden on the capacity of the detention facilities of a Member State or on its administrative or judicial staff, such a Member State may, for a period of maximum three months, decide to allow for periods for judicial review longer than those provided for under the third subparagraph of Article 18(2) and to take urgent measures in respect of the conditions of detention derogating from those set out in Articles 19(1) and 20(2). The Member States shall, within three months, and under coordination by the Commission and EU Agencies, take all necessary measures to ensure adequate capacity.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 16(4) regarding time limits for judicial review. Although Member States could find themselves in emergency situations, this should be addressed within 3 months by ensuring adequate capacity.




[...] deleted

Or. it

Amendment 740Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia

PE658.738v01-00 344/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

Donáth



[...] deleted

Or. en

Justification

The proposal of the Commission for the border procedure in this context is problematic as this is linked to unclear outcome of the potential negotiations of the Asylum Procedures Regulation. The APR is appropriate legislative act to address possible border procedures.




[...] deleted

Or. en




[...] deleted

Or. en

Justification

Without a decision on this issue in APR, which codifies all the provisions on the border procedure and especially the safeguards, it is nearly impossible to amend Article 22, without

AM\1214327EN.docx 345/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

risking having breaches on fundamental rights.




3. Return decisions issued in return procedures carried out in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article shall be given by means of a standard form as set out under national legislation, in accordance with Article 15(3).

3. In the context of procedures carried out in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, Member States shall issue:

(a) either a return decisions given by means of a standard form as set out in the annex, or(b) a refusal of entry, in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation 2016/399; paragraph 4-8 shall not apply in this case.

Member States shall issue one of the decisions referred to in this paragraph as soon as possible, where possible under national law together with the decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

Or. en




3. Return decisions issued in return procedures carried out in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article shall be given

3. Return decisions issued in return procedures carried out in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article may be given by

PE658.738v01-00 346/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

by means of a standard form as set out under national legislation, in accordance with Article 15(3).

means of a standard form as set out under national legislation, in accordance with Article 15(3).

Or. pl




4. A period for voluntary departure shall not be granted. Member States shall however grant an appropriate period for voluntary departure in accordance with Article 9 to third-country nationals holding a valid travel document and fulfilling the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures established in accordance with paragraph 7. Member States shall require the third-country nationals concerned to hand over the valid travel document to the competent authority until departure.

4. A period for voluntary departure shall not be granted. Member States shall however in exceptional circumstances grant an appropriate period for voluntary departure in accordance with Article 9 to third-country nationals holding a valid travel document and fulfilling the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures established in accordance with paragraph 7. Member States shall require the third-country nationals concerned to hand over the valid travel document to the competent authority until departure.

Or. nl

Justification

It should be emphasised that compulsory return is the rule.




5. Member States shall grant a period 5. Member States shall grant a period

AM\1214327EN.docx 347/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

of time not exceeding 48 hours to lodge an appeal against the return decisions based on a final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] at the border or in transit zones of the Member States.

of time not exceeding 48 hours to lodge an appeal against the return decisions, which shall always be issued at the same time as the final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] at the border or in transit zones of the Member States.

Or. nl

Justification

Administrative simplification. Only one decision needs to be taken and potentially challenged.




5. Member States shall grant a period not exceeding 48 hours to lodge an appeal against the return decisions based on a final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] at the border or in transit zones of the Member States.

5. Member States shall grant a period not exceeding 24 hours to lodge an appeal against the return decisions based on a final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] at the border or in transit zones of the Member States.

Or. fr



PE658.738v01-00 348/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN


The enforcement of a return decision during the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the period established, during the examination of the appeal, shall be automatically suspended where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement and one of the following two conditions applies:

deleted

(a) new elements or findings have arisen or have been presented by the third-country national concerned after a decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], which significantly modify the specific circumstances of the individual case; or(b) the decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation(EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] was not subject to an effective judicial review in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation.

Or. fr


Proposal for a directiveArticle 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point a


(a) new elements or findings have arisen or have been presented by the third country national concerned after a decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], which significantly modify the specific circumstances of the individual

(a) sufficiently serious new elements or findings have arisen or have been presented by the third-country national concerned after a decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], which significantly modify

AM\1214327EN.docx 349/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

case; or the specific circumstances of the individual case and which could not in any way have already been brought to the knowledge of the third-country national concerned; or

Or. nl

Justification

A situation where elements already in existence – but yet to be raised by the person concerned – are introduced in stages, in order to prolong the procedure, should be avoided.




Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged, and in all other cases, the enforcement of the return decision shall not be suspended unless a court or tribunal decides otherwise taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.

Should a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision be lodged, and in all other cases, the enforcement of the return decision shall not be suspended.

Or. fr




Detention shall be for as short a period as possible, which shall in no case exceed four months. It may be maintained only as

Detention shall be maintained for at least as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.

PE658.738v01-00 350/351 AM\1214327EN.docx

EN

long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.

Or. fr

Amendment 752Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Olivier Chastel, Fabienne Keller



The Commission shall report every three years to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive in the Member States and, if appropriate, propose amendments.

The Commission shall report every three years to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive in the Member States and, if appropriate, propose amendments. Such report shall be accompanied by a full Commission impact assessment of the transposition and implementation of this Directive by each Member States.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments to Article 6 and other new Articles that entail changes of which the impact should be assessed. The Commission did unfortunately not do an impact assessment when proposing this recast, and the Parliament had to commission one itself. A full impact assessment of these changes is needed, as it a full monitoring should rely on proper data and findings.


Proposal for a directiveArticle 24 a (new)


Article 24aWhen the third country is considered not to be cooperating sufficiently with

AM\1214327EN.docx 351/351 PE658.738v01-00

EN

Member States with regard to readmission, Article 25(1)(a) of the Visa Code shall apply.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to Amendment 8, which it supplements.




Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 6 to 10, Articles 13 and 14(3), Article 16, Article 18 and Article 22 by [six months after the day of entry into force] and with Article 14(1) and (2) by [one year after the day of entry into force]. They shall immediately communicate the text of those measures to the Commission.

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2 to 4, Articles 7 to 13, Article 14(3), Articles 15 and 16, Articles 18 to 20 by [six months after the day of entry into force] and with Article 14(1) and (2) by [one year after the day of entry into force]. They shall immediately communicate the text of those measures to the Commission.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment ensures coherence with the other amendments tabled by the shadow rapporteur.

am com legreport · 2 days ago · am\1214327en.docx 5/351 pe658.738v01-00 en 11 11 com(2015)285....

Documents