10 Amendments of Nicola PROCACCINI related to 2019/2208(INI)
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. StressNotes that, according to 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more than one return decision to one person, or to people whose whereabouts are unknown, and return decisions are not withdrawn if the return does not take place owing to, especially because of difficulties in cooperation with third countries or for humanitarian reasons;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the importance of ensuring compliance with return decisions and recallshopes that the key principle enshrined in the directive that voluntary returns should be prioritised over forced returns is subject to an assessment of its effectiveness, bearing in mind that most return decisions are currently not being finalised;
Amendment 101 #
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 perwhere there is a risk of absconding or if an applicatiodn 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 departurelegal residence has been rejected as manifestly unfounded or fraudulent, or if the person concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security, Member States may refrain from granting a period for voluntary departure or grant one of less than seven days;
Amendment 111 #
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 undermineit is the prerogative of the Member States to establish whether there is a risk of absconding, and hence to decide whether to refrain from granting a period for voluntary departure;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes with regret thHopes that Member States will make 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 and facilitate individuals’ social inclusion and contribution to society, as an extraordinary measure, based on the assessment of individual cases;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes with concern the widespread automatic imposition ofIs of the view that entry bans, which in some Member States are often enforced alongside voluntary departure;, stresses that this approach riskshould, rather, be enforced alongside forced return decisions, with a view to reducing incentives to fail to comply with a return decision;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses 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 actually reduce the incentive to complyestablished time period and that, once imposed, entry bans should be associated with a forced return decision and may increase, with a view to reducing the risk of absconding;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses that entry bans have particularly disproportionate consequences 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 considerationchildren’s interests should be taken into consideration, based on a careful assessment of specific cases, when deciding on the entry ban of their parents;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes differences in the transposition into national legislations of the definition of the ‘risk of absconding’ and, but reiterates that Article 3(7) of the directive provides that the existence of such a risk should always be assessed on thdefines it as being the existence of reasons in an individual case which are basised ofn objective criteria defined by law to believe that a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond, thus giving Member States some leeway;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is concernedNotes 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;