9 Amendments of Tanja FAJON related to 2019/2208(INI)
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. Whereas the lack of harmonization has a deep impact on return practices among Member States;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
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, especially as it is less expensive and more sustainable;
Amendment 103 #
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, of at least 30 days, 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;
Amendment 114 #
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 the need for a closed and exhaustive list of criteria’s to define strictly the risk of absconding; recalls that lifting the voluntary departure period also leads to the imposition of an entry ban, which may further undermine voluntary departure;
Amendment 126 #
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, in a language the person understands;
Amendment 136 #
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; an automatic suspensive remedy is necessary to harmonize the practices and ensure that people are not returning before the final decision;
Amendment 146 #
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 and facilitate individuals’ social inclusion and contribution to society; notes that this would also help to get people out of administrative limbos where they are left;
Amendment 206 #
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, which are proven to be better for migrants and Member States, since they cost less and have a less negative impact on migrants, especially children and vulnerable people;
Amendment 240 #
20a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure the sustainability of returns by monitoring them and by funding reintegration programs in cooperation with third countries of origin.