18 Amendments of Hilde VAUTMANS related to 2019/2208(INI)
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more than one return decision to one person, or to people whose whereabouts are unknown, and return decisions are not withdrawn if the return does not take place owing to difficulties in cooperation with third countries or for humanitarian reasons, or people return voluntarily without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 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Highlights the importance of providing individual case management and assistance, tailored to the individual circumstances and prospects of the returnee when assisting in assisted voluntary return in all stages of the process, with particular attention for unaccompanied minors;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that return and entry-ban decisions on removal should be individualised, clearly justified with reasons in law and in fact, issued in writing, and complete with information about available remedies; takes the view that unaccompanied children should not be returned and that children should be informed in a child-friendly manner and in a language that they understand about their rights and remedies;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that the directive allows for the temporary suspension of the enforcement of a removal, pending a decision relating to return; underlines the importance of such suspensive effect in cases where there is a risk of refoulement; notes that in most countries, appeal against return is not automatically suspensive, which may diminish protection and increase administrative burdens; stresses that the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration for all decisions concerning children, including pending decisions relating to return;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes with regret the limited use of Article 6(4) of the directive; is concerned about the failure of Member States to issue a temporary residence permit where return has proven not to be possible; underlines the fact that granting residence permits to individuals who cannot return to their coRecalls that Article 6(4) of the directive provides Member States with the possibility to grant an autonomous residence permit to a third-country national staying irregularly on their territory; stresses the importance of successfully exhausting the options provided in the directive to enforce return decisions, highlighting voluntary of origin could help to prevent protracted irregular stays and facilitate individuals’ social inclusion and contribution to societyreturn; notes however with regret the limited use of Article 6(4) of the directive where return has proven not to be possible;
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 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that the directive establishes that returnees may lawfully be detained where other less coercive measures cannot be applied; expresses regret that despite the obligation to apply detention as a measure of last resort, in practice, very few viable alternatives to detention are developed and applied by Member States; calls on Member States, as a matter of urgency, to offer viable community-based alternatives to detention, especially for children both when unaccompanied and with their families;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that a significant number of children are still detained in the European Union as part of return procedures, which constitutes a direct violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has clarified that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests also in line with the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants of 19 September 2016; Stresses the importance for Member States to work out alternatives to detention, such as community-based placements for children;
Amendment 233 #
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 minors; children if returned, which should be avoided; calls on Member States to carry out a proper handover of child protection services among national authorities to ensure that returned children are taken care of and have access to national child protection services;