43 Amendments of Sabrina PIGNEDOLI related to 2018/0329(COD)
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) An effective and fair return policyThe external borders of the Member States are the borders of the Union. A joint return policy that is both effective and respectful of the rights of illegally staying migrants is an essential part of the Union’s approach to better manage migration in all aspects, as reflected in the European Agenda on Migration of May 201511. _________________ 11 11 COM(2015)285.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) On 28 June 2018, in its conclusions, the European Council underlined the necessityThe rate of return of migrants in irregular situations in the Union remains too low. As stressed by the European Council on 28 June 2018, in its conclusions, it is necessary to adopt an effective and coherent European return policy with a view to significantly stepping up the effective return of irregular migrants, and welcomed the intention of the Commission to make legislative proposals for a more effective and coherent European return policy through the improvement of return and readmission procedures, including through the conclusion of new bilateral readmission agreements and by ensuring that existing agreements are fully applied.
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) The implementation of joint awareness-raising campaigns in third countries on the risks inherent in irregular migration and on the Union’s return policy should be strengthened.
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
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.
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
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-widesolely on objective criteria. Moreover laid down by this Directive shouland sdet out specific criteria which establish a ground for a rebuttable presumption that a risk of absconding existsermined by a judicial or administrative authority following consideration of the individual circumstances of the case.
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
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 30 days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should 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 within the meaning of this Directive or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security, duly evidenced either by a conviction or by elements that substantiate the assessment that they represent a danger to the public. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.
Amendment 192 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14 a (new)
Recital 14 a (new)
Amendment 202 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The deadline for lodging an judicial 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. A limit of 30 days should be granted from notification of the return decision in which to appeal against the decision. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding five15 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.
Amendment 235 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) The necessary legal aid should be made available free of charge, upon request, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish a list of instances where legal aid is to be considered necessary.
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be considered a measure of last resort and subject to the principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued. Preference should be given to alternatives to detention. The detention of unaccompanied minors or families with minors should never be possible. Detention is justified only to prepare the return or carry out the removal process and if the application of less coercive measures would not be sufficient.
Amendment 259 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Detention should 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,ithin the meaning of this Directive or when the third- country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
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 months, which may be prolonged once only for a maximum of a further six months, 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.
Amendment 274 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
Amendment 283 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 288 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 295 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 301 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 308 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
Amendment 332 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) The purpose of an effective implementation of the return of third- country nationals who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in the Member States, in accordance with this Directive, is an essential component of the comprehensive efforts to tackle irregular migration and represents an important reason of substantial public interest. element of an overall approach to migration, combining more effective control of the Union’s external borders, reinforcement of external action and the internal dimension.
Amendment 344 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 367 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7
7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of reasons in an individual case which are based on objective criteria defined by lawthis Directive to believe that a third- country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond;
Amendment 394 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least the following criteriaare as follows:
Amendment 395 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 400 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 405 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 410 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g
Amendment 412 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i
Amendment 415 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point j
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point j
Amendment 416 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) existence of conviction for a criminal offence, including for a serious criminal offence in another Member State, where the sentence has not been fully served;
Amendment 425 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point p
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point p
Amendment 437 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
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 (po) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.
Amendment 455 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 519 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
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 exceptions 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 and of the voluntary return programmes available in a language which the illegally staying third-country national understands, in sufficient time to enable them to exercise the rights guaranteed by this Directive.
Amendment 574 #
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, in the presence of the appointed guardian and with due consideration being given to the best interests of the child.
Amendment 592 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case and shall not in principle exceed, up to a maximum of five years. It may however exceed five years if the third- country national represents a serious threat to public policy, public security or national security where this has been duly proven either by a conviction or by other objective elements that may be deduced from the circumstances of the case.
Amendment 651 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
An appeal against a return decision must be lodged within 30 days of its notification to the person concerned. Member States shall establish reasonable time limits and other necessary rules to ensure the exercise of the right to an effective remedy pursuant to this Article.
Amendment 657 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall grant a period not exceeding five15 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].
Amendment 678 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
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. on the basis of a conviction or elements that substantiate the assessment that they represent a danger to the public
Amendment 684 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Any detention shall be a measure of last resort to be applied when measures other than detention are not available, and for as short a period as possible and only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.
Amendment 686 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Detention shall never be used for unaccompanied minors or families with minors.
Amendment 687 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 b (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 b (new)
The maximum period of detention must be between three and six months; it may be extended once only for a maximum period of a further six months.
Amendment 711 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20
Article 20
Amendment 739 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22
Article 22