Activities of Anne-Sophie PELLETIER related to 2019/2208(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of the Return Directive
Amendments (33)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 a (new)
Citation 21 a (new)
- having regard to the Council of Europe's 2019 Handbook on alternatives to immigration detention;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 b (new)
Citation 21 b (new)
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Commission has only assessed the implementation of the Return Directive once (in 2014), despite the legal obligation under Article 19 of the directive to report on its application every three years, starting from 2013; whereas despite its commitment in its 2014 Communication to table legislative amendments to the Return Directive only after a thorough evaluation of its implementation, the Commission released a proposal for a recast in 2018;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the twofold objective of the directive is effective return in line with fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality; whereas in its recommendation on making returns more effective, the Commission focuses on the rate of returns as the primary indicator of the directive’s effectiveness and recommends to diminish many safeguards of the directive, such as the right to appeal and to make use of longer detention periods;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the Commission has noted that Member States face several barriers to effective returns, of a procedural, technical and operational nature, inter alia the level of cooperation among all stakeholders involved, including with third countries; whereas identification of returnees and the need to obtain the necessary documentation from third countries has been identified by the Commission as the main reason for non-return;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas Member States' use of the possibility in Article 2(2)(a) not to apply the Directive in "border cases" has created parallel regimes, where procedures offer less safeguards, including absence of a voluntary return term, of suspensive effect of appeals and less restrictions on detention; whereas there is a high risk of push-back and refoulement at external borders;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas, according to the Commission's estimates, 300 000 people per year can not be returned due to administrative barriers, health issues or risk of non-refoulement; whereas their situation should be addressed, including by granting them a legal status based on humanitarian grounds;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas disaggregated and comparable data on detention and entry bans relating to the implementation of the directive is often not collected or publicly available;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates the importance of an evidence-based approach to guide coherent policy-making and well-informed public discourse and calls on the Commission to urge and support Member States to collect and publish qualitative and quantitative data on the implementation of the directive; welcomes in this regard the Regulation (EU) 2020/851 amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection, invites Member States to collect statistics on this basis as soon as possible and participate in the pilot studies;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Regrets that the latest policy proposals on return made by the Commission are not based on any impact assessment and focus on diminishing the fundamental rights safeguards that have been enshrined in the 2008 Return Directive; points that changes in this direction will lead to a violation of the fundamental rights of the people concerned that have experienced trauma in their home countries, on their journey to the Union or within the Union;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
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; highlights that this focus on the return rate overlooks also the persons that can not be returned, including because of the risk of refoulement;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the importance of improving the effective implementation of the fundamental rights safeguards enshrined in the directive; highlights that suchthe effectiveness of the directive 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, the respect of the principle of non-refoulement, the promotion of voluntary return, the respect of procedural guarantees, the effective implementation of alternatives to detention;
Amendment 71 #
4a. Calls on Member States to apply the directive to border situations as well, ensuring procedural safeguards and respect for human rights at borders;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Expresses concerns regarding the conclusion of informal deals on readmission that bypass parliamentary scrutiny and democratic and judicial oversight; calls on Member States and the Commission to end this practice;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Invites the Commission to carry out a follow-up study of those who have been the subject of a removal order; recalls that in order to encourage voluntary returns, member states should provide assistance and counselling to people who are the subject of a return decision; stresses that it would be interesting to study the sustainability of returns with and without specific support;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the importance of ensuring compliance with return decisions and rRecalls the key principle enshrined in the directive that voluntary returns should be prioritised over forced returns;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights that under Article 7 of the directive, a return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure, which Member States have to extend where necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case; stresses that a relatively short period for voluntary departure may hinder or altogether prevent voluntary departure; recalls that Member States which provide this period for voluntary departure only following an application, must inform the third-country nationals concerned;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses that unaccompanied minors should never be returned unless it can be demonstrated that it is in the child's best interest;
Amendment 121 #
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, stresses the importance that this information need to be accessible to the persons concerned, in particular in a language he or she understands; expresses concerns regarding the frequent lack of sufficient detail and motivation in return decisions;
Amendment 134 #
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, other fundamental rights violations or because of health that does not allow the execution of the return decision without posing excessive risks; notes that in most countries, appeal against return is not automatically suspensive, which may diminish protection and increase administrative burdens; calls on Member States to grant automatic suspensive effect;
Amendment 148 #
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 country of origin could help to prevent protracted irregular stays, reduce labour exploitation and facilitate individuals’ social inclusion and contribution to society; calls on Member States to expand their use of Article 6(4) of the directive;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Notes the significant differences between Member States in the right to appeal, especially the type of appeal body and the appeal time-limits; stresses the need to guarantee the right to an effective remedy, including by providing proper and accessible information and legal aid;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Notes that the situation of a person may vary during the period imposed by the entry ban and that a person may find himself or herself at risk of persecution in the country he or she has been returned while being unable to enter the Union because of an existing entry ban; calls on Member States to lift the entry ban based on humanitarian considerations in such cases;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses that entry bans have particularly disproportionate consequences in particular for families and children; welcomes the option introduced by some Member States to exempt children from the imposition of an entry ban, but stresses that children’s interests should also be a primary consideration when deciding on the entry ban of their parents; calls on Member States to respect the right to family life and not to issue entry bans in cases where a member of the family is legally residing in the Union but rather facilitate the reunification of this family under the Family Reunification Directive in cases where returns could not have been prevented;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is concerned that the legislation of several Member States includes extensive 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; stresses that this has led to detention being imposed in a systematic manner in many Member States despite the significant costs of detention over alternatives to detention;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Recalls that detention must remain a measure of last resort, is the exception and not the rule, because detention, regardless of the length of the detention, has deleterious psychological effects on the people subject to it;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that the directive establishes that returnees may lawfully be detained only where other less coercive measures cannot be applied and for the shortest period possible; 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; draws attention to the fact that several studies indicate that longer periods of detention are not conducive to higher rate of returns;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Calls on Member States to respect the mandates of relevant and competent national and international bodies, such as National Human Rights Institutions, Ombuds institutions and National Preventive Mechanisms, conducting independent oversight of the conditions of detention;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16b. Emphasises that the directive establishes that detention is unlawful if there is no reasonable prospect of removal; deplores that several Member States allow detention based on national security considerations independent on whether there is a reasonable prospect of removal;
Amendment 221 #
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; calls for an end to the detention of children;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Welcomes the release, in different countries, of persons detained only on the grounds of their immigration status whose return within a reasonable time frame was no longer possible because of the COVID-19 pandemic; regrets that the Commission recommendations related to detention in its Communication of 16 April 2020 on COVID-19 did not take into account the measures recommended by the WHO and the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to ensure thatand Member States and Frontex haveto ensure that return monitoring bodies are in place and that they are supported by a proper mandate, monitoring, capacity and competence, a high level of independence and expertise, and transparent procedures; stresses that return monitoring should encompass all phases of return operations, with adequate resources; calls on the Commission and Member States to rely on existing independent monitoring bodies, such as national and international organisations and National Human Rights Institutions, by cooperating with or designating them as forced return monitoring systems; 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 minorspersons from vulnerable groups, including unaccompanied minors and families if they have been returned;