36 Amendments of Brice HORTEFEUX related to 2019/2208(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to regulation (EU) 2018/1860 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third country nationals (‘SIS return’),
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 b (new)
Citation 8 b (new)
- having regard to regulation (EU) 2020/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 amending Regulation (EC)No 862/2007,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)
Citation 12 a (new)
- - Having regard to the Commission proposal on the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recast of Eurodac (COM(2016) 272 final),
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 b (new)
Citation 12 b (new)
- - Having Regard to the Conclusions of the European Council of October 2016 and June 2018,
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18
Citation 18
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 a (new)
Citation 21 a (new)
- having regard to the Frontex evaluation report 15 of June 2020 on return operations 2nd semester 2019,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 b (new)
Citation 21 b (new)
- having regard to the Europol European Migrant Smuggling 4th Annual Report, 2019, of 15 of May 2020,
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 25 a (new)
Citation 25 a (new)
- having regard to the reports on the application of the Schengen acquis in the field of return produced in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 of 7 October 2013 establishing an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis and repealing the Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998 setting up a Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen,
Amendment 21 #
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 effectivenessnamely, to establish common rules concerning return, removal, use of coercive measures, detention and entry bans in line with fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas disaggregated and comparable data relating to the implementation of the directive is often not collected or publicly available; publicly available, namely through Eurostat; whereas more and better information will be available with the implementation of regulation 2018/1860 on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals (‘SIS return’) and with Regulation (EU) 2020/851 amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas between 2014 and 2018 five million people were found illegally present in the Union; whereas during the same period less than half were issued a return decision and less than 800.000 left the territory;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas between 2014 and 2018 over four million peoples requested asylum in Europe and less than half were granted asylum;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)
Recital D c (new)
Dc. whereas Member States do not systematically share information on return decisions or entry bans issued, making impossible in practice the mutual recognition of return decisions issued by Member States and their enforcement Union-wide;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D d (new)
Recital D d (new)
Dd. Whereas in order to increase the efficiency of readmissions, and in order to ensure the coherence of returns at a European level, it will be necessary to adopt new EU agreements which should take preference over bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. DeplorNotes the lack of a recentn implementation assessment and calls on the Commission to carry out such an assessmentfrom the European Commission, which hwas been overdue since 2017, as a matter of urgency;
Amendment 43 #
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; data on the implementation of the directive, making use in particular of the new instruments available, such as SIS return and Regulation (EU) 2020/851 amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection;
Amendment 52 #
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, sgiven the inherent margin of freedome 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 reasonshave in the implementation of the rules provided for by the Return Directive;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is concerned that since 2015, despite the increase of illegal entries, neither the issuance of return decisions nor its execution have increased, on the contrary the number of enforced return decisions has been decreasing since 2016;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the importance of improving the effective implementation of the directive; highlights that such effectiveness should not only be meas and the effectiveness of return procedureds in quantitative terms by referring to the return rate, but also in qualitative terms, such as the sustainability of returns and fundamental rightsthe Member States; highlights that such effectiveness be measured;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the importance of ensuring migrants' compliance with return decisions and recalls the key principle enshrined in the directive that voluntary returns should be prioritised over forced returns, where there are no reasons to believe that this would undermine the purpose of a return procedure;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses the importance of fair, swift and effective procedures for the return of third-country nationals not entitled to protection, which respects the fundamental rights of the persons concerned. Special attention needs to be paid in particular to the return of rejected asylum seekers, who represent a significant share of the irregular migrants in the EU, where significant procedural gaps between asylum and return procedures exist in the EU;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Recalls the need to eliminate loopholes between asylum and return procedures, notably the possibilities to unduly suspend return procedures by lodging subsequent asylum applications for the sole purpose of hampering returns; calls on Member States to put in place the necessary procedures for that effect, in compliance with the Asylum Procedure Directive and the Return Directive;
Amendment 98 #
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, shall extend, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case; stressnotes that a relatively short period for voluntary departure may hinder or altogether prevent voluntary departureMember States’ national programmes to assist the voluntary departure are sometimes insufficient in scope and means;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that the directive requires return and entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal shouldto be individualised, clearly justified with reasons in law and in fact, issued in writing, and complete with information about available remedies;
Amendment 137 #
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 review of a decision relating to return; underlines the importance ofneed of ensuring 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;
Amendment 150 #
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; uUnderlines the fact that granting residence permits to individuals who cannot return to their country of origin could help to prevent protracted irregular stays and, as permitted by article 6(4) of the directive, may facilitate individuals’ social inclusion and contribution to society; at the same time, coordination within the Union is necessary in order to avoid pull factors and unauthorised secondary movements;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 170 #
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 comply with a return decision and may increase the risk of abscondingthe directive has rules allowing for entry bans to be lifted and calls on Member States to make use of these when necessary;
Amendment 181 #
13. Stresses that entry bans may 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 consideration when deciding on the entry ban of their parents;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is concerned that the legislation of several Member States includes extensive listvarying definitions of ‘objective criteria’ for definingthe assessment of the risk of absconding, which are often applied in a more or less automatic way, while individual circumstances are of marginal considerat in national legislation of Member States may result in inconsistent application of detention across the Union;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that the directive establishes thatunder which circumstances returnees may lawfully be detained where other; notes also that detention is only possible if other sufficient but 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 detentionffectively in a specific case; expresses regret that very few viable alternatives to detention are developed and applied by Member States;
Amendment 222 #
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, asUnderlines that there is a need for appropriate and effective alternatives to the detention of minors in return procedures; recalls that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has clarifiedconsiders that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests;
Amendment 234 #
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;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Notes with concern that Member States face challenges to regularly ensure the full occupancy of all seats available for returnees in return operations by charter flights coordinated by Frontex, mainly due notably to last minute asylum requests or absconding of returnees;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Notes with concern that in some cases the option to have joint return Frontex operations is excluded by bilateral agreements between organizing or participating Member States and non- EU countries of destination;