[ParlTrack]

Proposal for a directive
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, provided that the return procedure is suspended until that rejection becomes final and pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection.deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(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.~~

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12

(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 assistanceof cooperation and information provision should be established for both Member States and for third-country nationals.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13

(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 shorter period for voluntary departure shcould ~~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.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 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.deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
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 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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18

~~(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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19

(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.deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
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 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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 25

(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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28

(28) Detention ~~should~~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 when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security~~.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 29

(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~~A maximum period of detention of three 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.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32

(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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33

(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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34

(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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35

(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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Recital 40 a (new)

(40a) In order to supplement non- essential elements of this Directive, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of establishing the specific modalities for the operation of the central system established in accordance with Article 50 of Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation] and the communication between the national systems and the central systems. Those modalities should include 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. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7

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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9

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.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point a

(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 172 (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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
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)

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a

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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 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:

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

~~(a) lack of documentation proving the identity;~~deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

~~(b) lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;~~deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

~~(c) lack of financial resources;~~deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d

~~(d) illegal entry into the territory of the Member States;~~deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k

(k) existence of conviction for a ~~criminal offence, including for a~~ serious criminal offence in a~~nother~~ Member State;

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point l

~~(l) ongoing criminal investigations and proceedings;~~deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 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;

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point p

~~(p) not complying with an existing entry ban.~~deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

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.deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – title

~~Oblig~~Information toand cooperateion

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Member States shall ~~impose on third-country nationals the obligation to cooperate with~~take measures that facilitate that the competent authorities ofand the ~~Member States at all stages of the return procedures. That obligation shall include the following in particular:~~third country national mutually cooperate and provide information.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

~~(a) the duty to provide all the elements that are necessary for establishing or verifying identity;~~deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b

~~(b) the duty to provide information on the third countries transi~~deleted;

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c

~~(c) the duty to remain present and available throughout the procedures;~~deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d

~~(d) the duty to lodge to the competent authorities of third countries a request for obtaining a valid travel document.~~deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. ~~The elements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third- country nationals’ statements and documentation in t~~(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/heir ~~possession regarding the identity,~~identity, including, where available, documentation regarding nationality or nationalities, age, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation. The third-country national shall also remain present and available throughout the procedure.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall inform the third-country nationals ~~about~~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 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 ~~the~~an obligation ~~referred to in paragraph 1.~~ 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.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
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].deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2

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.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3

~~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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

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.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

~~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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

4. Member States ~~shall not grant a~~may grant a shorter period for voluntary departure in following cases:

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point b

(b) where an application for legal stay has been dismissed as ~~manifestly unfounded or~~ fraudulent;

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
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 child~~and the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration assessed by a guardian who is appointed to assist the unaccompanied minor.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2

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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1

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, as well as including post-return monitoring and support to ensure sustainable returns.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2

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]. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article23a to establish the specific modalities for the operation of this central system and the communication between the national systems and the central system, 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.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Such assistance ~~may~~shall include support for reintegration in the third country of return 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.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing ~~the~~an 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 officiogainst 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.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

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: (a) 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) consequence of the decision on ending the legal stay that has been taken following such procedures.deleted the reason for temporary the return decision is the

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

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~~, in particular~~ when:

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 5

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~~limited period of detention ~~of not less than three months and not more than six~~which may not exceed three months.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1

1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall ~~only~~not be detained ~~as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time~~.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 2

2. ~~Families detained pending removal shall be provided with separate accommodation guaranteeing adequate privacy~~Member States shall instead 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.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 3

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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 4

~~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

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 5

~~5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of minors pending removal.~~deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Article 22

~~22 [...]~~deleted

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 1

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.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR, Nathalie GRIESBECK

Proposal for a directive
Article 23 a (new)

Article 23a Exercise of the delegation 1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 14(2) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from the … [date of entry into force of the basic legislative act or any other date set by the co-legislators]. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 14(2) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. Before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall consult experts designated by each Member State in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. 5. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 6. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 14(2) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or by the Council within a period of [two months] of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.

2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE

71 Amendments of Angelika MLINAR related to 2018/0329(COD)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024