32 Amendments of Mara BIZZOTTO related to 2018/0329(COD)
Amendment 172 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear responsibilities for third-country nationals should be established, and in particular the obligation to cooperate with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure, including by providing the information and elements that are necessary in order to assess their individual situation. The determination of their real age, through bone or dental tests, is vital in order to verify the truth of their statements on this subject, making it possible to assess their good faith, and to protect genuine unaccompanied minors by distinguishing between them and those making false claims. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that third-country nationals are informed of the consequences of not complying with those obligations, in relation to the determination of the risk of absconding, the granting of a period for voluntary departure and the possibility to impose detention, and to the access to programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.
Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The deadline for lodging an 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. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding fivthree 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 213 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
Amendment 225 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) In cases where the principle of non-refoulement is not at stake, aAppeals against a return decision should not have an automatic suspensive effect. The judicial authorities should be able to temporarily suspend the enforcement of a return decision in individual cases for other reasons, either upon request of the third- country national concerned or acting ex officio, where deemed necessary. Such decisions should, as a rule, be taken within 48 hours. Where justified by the complexity of the case, judicial authorities should take such decision without undue delay.
Amendment 231 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) To improve the effectiveness of return procedures and avoid unnecessary delays, without negatively affecting the rights of the third-country nationals concerned, the enforcement of the return decision should not be automatically suspended in cases where the assessment of the risk to breach the principle of non- refoulement already took place and judicial remedy was effectively exercised as part of the asylum procedure carried out prior to the issuing of the related return decision against which the appeal is lodged, unless the situation of the third- country national concerned would have significantly changed since.
Amendment 247 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) When an illegally staying third- country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it may be appropriateis necessary to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration. When justified, following an individual assessment and in application of the principle of proportionality, aAn entry ban mayshall be imposed by the competent authority without issuing a return decision in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third- country national concerned.
Amendment 251 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be subject to the principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued. Detention is justifHowever, in viedw only to prepare the return or carry out the removal process and if the application of less coercive measures would not be sufficientf the illegal situation of the individuals concerned by return, detention must always remain an instrument available to Member States.
Amendment 261 #
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 does not cooperate with all the stages in the removal process, avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.
Amendment 266 #
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, 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 307 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) An appeal against a return decision taken in the context of the border procedure should not have an automatic suspensive effect in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non- refoulement, there has been a significant change in the situation of the third- country national concerned since the adoption under the asylum border procedure of the decision rejecting his or her application for international protection, or if no judicial remedy was effectively exercised against the decision rejecting his or her application for international protection adopted under the asylum border procedure.
Amendment 315 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) Establishing return management systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that are relevant for monitoring and following up on individual cases. To operate efficiently and in order to significantly reduce the administrative burden, such national return systems should be linked to the Schengen Information System, to Eurodac and to all the databases used to identify third country nationals, to facilitate and speed up the entering of return-related information, as well as to the central system established by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation].
Amendment 329 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) Application of this Directive is without prejudice to the obligations resulting from the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967.
Amendment 334 #
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, based on the principle of deterrence, and represents an important reason of substantial public interest.
Amendment 339 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) Member States' return authorities need to process personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return procedures and the successful enforcement of return decisions. The third countries of return are often not the subject of adequacy decisions adopted by the Commission under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18, or under Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/68019, and have often not concluded or do not intend to conclude a readmission agreement with the Union or otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within the meaning of the national provisions transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of the Union in cooperating with the main countries of origin of illegally staying third-country nationals subject to an obligation to return, it is not always possible to ensure such third countries systematically fulfil the obligation established by international law to readmit their own nationals. Policies involving diplomatic and economic pressure should be applied in order to encourage them to do so. Readmission agreements, concluded or being negotiated by the Union or the Member States and providing for appropriate safeguards for the transfer of data to third countries pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or pursuant to the national provisions transposing Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, cover a limited number of such third countries. In the situation where such agreements do not exist, personal data should be transferred by Member States' competent authorities for the purposes of implementing the return operations of the Union, in line with the conditions laid down in Article 49(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in the national provisions transposing Article 38 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. _________________ 18Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1 p. 1. 19 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89).
Amendment 380 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point b
Amendment 382 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – title
Article 5 – title
5 Non-refoulement, bBest interests of the child, family life and state of health
Amendment 386 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 391 #
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 criteria and any other criterion deemed useful by Member States:
Amendment 448 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the duty to provide all the elements that are necessary for establishing or verifying identity, including age through bone or dental tests;
Amendment 475 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The elements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third- country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession regarding the identity, nationality or nationalities, age and means of verifying the declared age through a bone or dental test, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation, and any other element that Member States may deem useful.
Amendment 562 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 589 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States mayshall impose an entry ban, which does not accompany a return decision, to a third-country national who has been illegally staying in the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and taking into account the principle of proportionality.
Amendment 641 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the set period, during the examination of the appeal, where there is a risk to breach the principle of non- refoulement. Should a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision be lodged, and in all other cases, the enforcement of the return decision shall not be suspended unless a court or tribunal decides otherwise taking into due account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.
Amendment 658 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall grant a period not exceeding fivthree 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 685 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 690 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 3
Article 18 – paragraph 3
Amendment 693 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 5
Article 18 – paragraph 5
5. Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal. Each Member State shall set a maximum period of detention of not less than three months and not more than six monthstheir choosing.
Amendment 697 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 6
Article 18 – paragraph 6
Amendment 747 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 5
Article 22 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall grant a period not exceeding 248 hours to lodge an appeal against the return decisions based on a final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] at the border or in transit zones of the Member States.
Amendment 748 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 750 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 751 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Detention shall be for as short a period as possible, which shall in no case excemaintained four months. It may be maintained onlyat least as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.