15 Amendments of Michal ŠIMEČKA related to 2018/0329(COD)
Amendment 147 #
(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, provide. 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.
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) In order to promote voluntary return, Member States should have operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, which mayshould 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.
Amendment 208 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(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 shcould take place before a single level of jurisdiction only, sinceonly 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.
Amendment 216 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) An appeal against a return decision should always have an automatic suspensive effect only in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulementexcept where judicial authorities have fully assessed the principle of non-refoulement and have found that this principle does not risk to be breached.
Amendment 224 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) In cases where the principle of non- refoulement is not at stakejudicial 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.
Amendment 232 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(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 significantly changed since.
Amendment 381 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) respect the principle of non- refoulement., best interest of the child, family life and state of health (Article 5)
Amendment 383 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in all decisions concerning minors;
Amendment 507 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
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.
Amendment 573 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
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 with due consideration being given to the best interests of the chiland 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.
Amendment 637 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The third-country national concerned shallcan 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.
Amendment 643 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing thean 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 breachgainst 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. Should a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision be lodged, and in all other cases, t under European and international law and have found that this principle does not risk to be breached. The enforcement of the return decision shall notcan also be suspended unlesswhen a court or tribunal decides otherwiseto do so, taking into due account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.
Amendment 715 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall onlynot be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of timend 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.
Amendment 721 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 2
2. Families detained pending removal shall be provided with separate accommodation guaranteeing adequate privacyMember 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.
Amendment 735 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 5
Article 20 – paragraph 5
5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of thealternatives to detention ofor minors pending removal.