13 Amendments of Michal ŠIMEČKA related to 2019/2208(INI)
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas sustainable returns and successful reintegration are important indicators in the assessment of the effectiveness of returns; whereas currently post-return monitoring is not sufficiently comprehensive and accurate; whereas evidence has emerged that not all returns are sustainable, especially in relation to unaccompanied minors, due to a lack of a personal reintegration plan or support upon return;
Amendment 53 #
3. Stresses that the Commission’s statement that the return rate decreased from 46 % in 2016 to 37 % in 2017 may not present the full picture, as people who received a return decision were not necessarily returned within the same year, some Member States issue more than one return decision to one person, or to people whose whereabouts are unknown, and return decisions are not withdrawn if the return does not take place owing to difficulties in cooperation with third countries or for humanitarian reasons, or people return voluntarily without their return being registered; stresses than an effective return policy is a key element of a well-functioning EU asylum and migration policy;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the Member States to allocate adequate capacity, including human resources and sufficient training, to authorities responsible for taking return decisions and implementation, so as to invest in the quality of them;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the importance of improving the effective implementation of the directive; calls on the Commission to make better implementation of the directive a priority and to launch infringement procedures where justified; highlights that such effectiveness should not only be measured in quantitative terms by referring to the return rate, but also in qualitative terms, such as the sustainability of returns and fundamental rights; stresses that measuring the effective implementation of the directive should be further enhanced and further streamlined among Member States in order to strengthen transparency and comparability of data;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that the Commission has stated that the lack of third country identification and readmission of returnees is one of the main reasons for non-return; stresses the need for improving the relations with third countries in a constructive migration dialogue to ensure a mutually beneficial cooperation for effective and sustainable returns;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Regrets the informalisation of cooperation with third countries; calls on the Member States to support the Commission to conclude formal EU readmission agreements, thereby coupled with EU parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight; stresses that incentives, including financial, should be offered to facilitate cooperation;
Amendment 85 #
5. Stresses the importance of ensuring compliance with return decisions and recalls the key principle enshrined in the directive that voluntary returns should be prioritised over forced returns; as they prove to be more sustainable;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that a broad definition of the risk of absconding may lead to Member States frequently refraining from granting a period for voluntary departure; recalls that lifting the voluntary departure period also leads to the imposition of an entry ban, which may further undermine voluntary departure; stresses the need for enhanced implementation of the current legal framework in order to step up successful voluntary returns;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses the need for more cooperation on return between the Member States, including information sharing and the application of Directive2001/40/EC on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, in line with fundamental rights guarantees; underlines the need for support, including operational, by the relevant Union agencies; stresses the need for increased cooperation between the Member States and Frontex;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. StressNotes that although the threat of imposition of an entry ban may serve as an incentive to leave a country within the time period of voluntary departure, once imposed, entry bans mactually reduce the incentive to comply with a return decision and may increase the risk of absconding; calls on Member States to consider timing imposition of the entry ban in order to successfully effectuate a return decision;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes differences in the transposition into national legislations of the definition ofRecalls that Article 3(7) of the directive states that the ‘'risk of absconding’ and reiterates that Article 3(7) of the directive provides that the existence of such a risk should always be assessed on the basis of objective criteria defined by law' 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; notes differences in the transposition into national legislations of the definition of the ‘risk of absconding’;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is concerned that the legislation of several Member States includes extensive and sometimes divergent lists of ‘objective criteria’ for defining the risk of absconding, which are often applied in a more or less automatic way, while individual circumstances are of marginal consideration; underlines the need for a harmonized and exhaustive common Union list of objective criteria to establish the risk of absconding;
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States and Frontex have monitoring bodies in place that are supported by a proper mandate, capacity and competence, a high level of independence and expertise, and transparent procedures; urges the Commission to ensure the establishment of a post-return monitoring mechanism to understand the fate of returned persons, with particular attention for unaccompanied minorshere legally and practically possible, with particular attention for vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors; highlights the need to follow up on reintegration plans of returnees to ensure the effective implementation; calls on the Commission to facilitate the exchange of good practices between the Member States regarding post-return monitoring and to allocate sufficient funding for this purpose;