2019/2208(INI) Implementation report on the Return Directive
Lead committee dossier:
Progress: Procedure completed
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | LIBE |
STRIK Tineke ( Verts/ALE)
|
RANGEL Paulo ( EPP),
GUILLAUME Sylvie ( S&D),
IN 'T VELD Sophia ( Renew),
BAY Nicolas ( ID),
KEMPA Beata ( ECR),
PELLETIER Anne-Sophie ( GUE/NGL)
|
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Events
2021/06/18
EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2020/12/17
EP - Decision by Parliament
Details
The European Parliament adopted by 512 votes to 134, with 49 abstentions, a resolution on the implementation of the Return Directive.
The Commission evaluated the implementation of the Return Directive only once (in 2014), despite the legal obligation to report on its implementation every three years from 2013 onwards. Members called on the Commission to carry out this evaluation, which should have been done in 2017, stressing the importance of a common evidence-based approach to guide coherent policy making and well-informed public discourse.
General observations
Concerned by the decrease in the number of return decisions that have been enforced since 2015, Members recalled that an effective return policy is one of the key elements of a well-functioning European asylum and migration policy.
However, they stressed that not all return decisions are followed by rapid return and readmission procedures. According to Parliament, the effectiveness of the Return Directive should be measured by referring to the return rate as well as by the sustainability of returns and implementation of fundamental rights safeguards, the respect for procedural guarantees and the effectiveness of voluntary return.
Identification of returnees and the need to obtain the necessary documentation from third countries has been identified by the Commission as one of the main reasons for non-returns.
Members stressed the need to strengthen cooperation between Member States on return and the need to improve relations with third countries as part of a constructive dialogue on migration. Member States should help the Commission to conclude European readmission agreements coupled with EU parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight.
Return decisions and voluntary departure
The Commission was called on to:
- continue considering voluntary returns as the preferred option over forced returns and to encourage Member States to develop an effective framework for access to voluntary return programmes;
- continue to provide funding for and increase the resources available to assisted voluntary return programmes to ensure sustainable returns and reintegration.
Procedural safeguards
The resolution stressed that the Return Directive requires return and entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal to be individualised, clearly justified with reasons in law and in fact, issued in writing, and complete with information about available remedies and the relevant deadlines. It stressed the need to guarantee the right to effective remedy, including by providing proper legal assistance.
Unaccompanied children should not be returned unless it can be demonstrated that it is in the child's best interests.
Entry bans
Members noted with concern the widespread automatic imposition of entry bans, which in some Member States are enforced alongside voluntary departure. They stressed that this approach risks reducing incentives for voluntary return.
The situation of a person may vary during the period imposed by an entry ban and that a person may find themselves at risk of persecution in the country they have been returned to. Member States are called on to lift the entry ban on the basis of humanitarian considerations in such cases. They reiterated that an entry ban should not be automatically applied, but should instead be based on an individual assessment taking into consideration the best interests of the child and the right to family life, the right to family reunification and the principle of proportionality.
Risk of absconding and detention
Noting differences in the transposition into national legislations of the definition of the ‘risk of absconding’, Parliament stressed the need to harmonise the definition and implementation of objective criteria to establish the risk of absconding.
Members stated that detention must remain a measure of last resort and be prescribed by law and be necessary, reasonable and proportional to the objectives to be achieved, that it must last for the shortest time possible and that the decision to impose detention always has to be based on an assessment of the individual circumstances, in which the interests of the individual concerned have been taken into account.
Member States should offer viable community-based alternatives to detention, which have a less negative impact on migrants, especially children and vulnerable people.
Detention of children
A significant number of children are still detained in the EU as part of return procedures. Members stressed that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests.
Member States are called on to:
- provide adequate, humane and non-custodial alternatives to detention;
- carry out proper handovers of child protection services among national authorities to ensure that returned children are taken care of and have access to national child protection services.
Documents
2020/12/16
EP - Results of vote in Parliament
Documents
2020/12/14
EP - Debate in Parliament
Documents
2020/12/02
EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted an own-initiative report by Tineke STRIK Greens/EFA, NL) on the implementation of the Return Directive.
Under Article 19 of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC), the Commission is to report on its application every three years, starting from 2013. It released its only evaluation report in 2013, based on a meta-study of return policies in 31 states.
Stressing the lack of recent implementation reports from the Commission, Members called for an updated assessment to be carried out.
This report, highlighting several gaps in the implementation of the Return Directive, is not intended to substitute the still overdue fully-fledged implementation assessment of the Commission.
General observations
Members stressed than an effective return policy is one of the key elements of a well-functioning EU asylum and migration policy. However, they underlined that not every return decision is followed by swift return and readmission procedures.
Member States were called on to allocate adequate capacity, including human resources and sufficient training, to authorities responsible for taking and implementing return decisions, and in doing so to invest in the quality of their decision-making and implementation.
Return decisions and voluntary departure
The Commission was called on to:
- continue considering voluntary returns as the preferred option over forced returns and to encourage Member States to develop an effective framework for access to voluntary return programmes;
- continue to provide funding for and increase the resources available to assisted voluntary return programmes to ensure sustainable returns and reintegration.
Procedural safeguards
Members stressed that the directive requires return and entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal to be individualised, clearly justified. There should be a need to guarantee the right to effective remedy, including by providing proper and accessible information and legal aid, including appropriate funds for the provision of legal assistance.
Entry bans
The report noted with concern the widespread automatic imposition of entry bans, which in some Member States are enforced alongside voluntary departure. It stressed that this approach risks reducing incentives for voluntary return. The length of an entry ban should be decided on an individual basis, taking into account all relevant circumstances and interests. National practices on the length of entry bans are far from harmonised, despite the fact that they have an effect in other Member States as well. The obligation to consider individual circumstances, humanitarian reasons and the right to family life should be strengthened in order to protect the proportionality principle and fundamental rights.
Risk of absconding and detention
Noting differences in the transposition into national legislations of the definition of the ‘risk of absconding’, Members stressed that this has led to detention being imposed in a systematic manner in many Member States. Therefore, there is a need for harmonisation in the definition and implementation of objective criteria to establish the risk of absconding.
Members stated that detention must remain a measure of last resort and be prescribed by law and be necessary, reasonable and proportional to the objectives to be achieved, that it must last for the shortest time possible and that the decision to impose detention always has to be based on an assessment of the individual circumstances, in which the interests of the individual concerned have been taken into account.
Member States should offer viable community-based alternatives to detention, which have a less negative impact on migrants, especially children and vulnerable people.
Detention of children
Members noted that a significant number of children are still detained in the EU as part of return procedures. They stressed that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests.
Member States are called on to:
- provide adequate, humane and non-custodial alternatives to detention;
- carry out proper handovers of child protection services among national authorities to ensure that returned children are taken care of and have access to national child protection services.
Documents
2020/12/01
EP - Vote in committee
2020/07/10
EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2020/06/09
EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2019/12/19
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2019/12/02
EP - STRIK Tineke (Verts/ALE) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2021)190
- Decision by Parliament: T9-0362/2020
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A9-0238/2020
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE655.606
- Committee draft report: PE653.716
- Committee draft report: PE653.716
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE655.606
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2021)190
Activities
- Pedro SILVA PEREIRA
Plenary Speeches (2)
Votes
A9-0238/2020 - Tineke Strik - Am 2 #
2020/12/15 Outcome: -: 535, +: 148, 0: 9
NI
PPEA9-0238/2020 - Tineke Strik - Am 3 #
2020/12/15 Outcome: -: 542, +: 108, 0: 44
A9-0238/2020 - Tineke Strik - Am 4 #
2020/12/15 Outcome: -: 570, +: 103, 0: 21
A9-0238/2020 - Tineke Strik - Am 5 #
2020/12/15 Outcome: -: 502, +: 168, 0: 24
A9-0238/2020 - Tineke Strik - Am 6 #
2020/12/15 Outcome: -: 539, +: 145, 0: 10
A9-0238/2020 - Tineke Strik - Am 7 #
2020/12/15 Outcome: -: 537, +: 152, 0: 5
A9-0238/2020 - Tineke Strik - Am 8 #
2020/12/15 Outcome: -: 547, +: 139, 0: 6
A9-0238/2020 - Tineke Strik - Am 9 #
2020/12/15 Outcome: -: 519, +: 159, 0: 16
A9-0238/2020 - Tineke Strik - Am 10 #
2020/12/15 Outcome: -: 549, +: 106, 0: 39
A9-0238/2020 - Tineke Strik - Am 1 #
2020/12/15 Outcome: -: 522, +: 131, 0: 41
A9-0238/2020 - Tineke Strik - Résolution #
2020/12/16 Outcome: +: 512, -: 134, 0: 49
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 240 |
2019/2208(INI)
2020/07/10
LIBE
240 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 6 Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 21 b (new) - having regard to the Europol European Migrant Smuggling 4th Annual Report, 2019, of 15 of May 2020,
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution 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, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights that under Article 7 of the directive,
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights that under Article 7 of the directive, a return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of between 7 and 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 103 #
Motion for a resolution 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 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses, however, that if Member States determine, based on an individual assessment, that the voluntariness of the departure endangers the implementation of the return decision, Member States have the opportunity to grant a shorter period for voluntary departure, or to refrain from its application in line with Article 7 (4) of the directive;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Underlines that not every return decision is followed by swift return and readmission procedures due to practical and legal obstacles and notes with concern that this can cause serious strains, not only on the local facilities, but on the people involved;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Welcomes the provisions, in several Member States, which allow for the individual circumstances to duly be taken into account to grant the extension of a period for voluntary departure;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Is concerned about the unintended negative effects of provisions requiring returnees to request a period of voluntary departure, instead of such period being granted by the competent authorities;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 c (new) 6c. Recalls that, in cases where the Directive requires Member States to postpone the removal, such as when it would violate the principle of non- refoulement, Article 14(2)of the Directive requires Member States to provide the persons concerned with written confirmation that the return decision will temporarily not be enforced;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 22 Amendment 110 #
7. Stresses that
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that a broad definition of the risk of absconding may lead to Member States
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that a broad definition of the risk of absconding may
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that a broad definition of the risk of absconding may lead to Member
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that a broad definition of the risk of absconding may
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses the need for more cooperation on return between the Member States, including information sharing and the application of Directive2001/40/EC on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, in line with fundamental rights guarantees; underlines the need for support, including operational, by the relevant Union agencies; stresses the need for increased cooperation between the Member States and Frontex;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses that the lack of consistent definitions and interpretations concerning the risk of absconding and the use of detention means, inter alia, that irregular migrants abscond or engage in secondary movements;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Notes that some Member States have regulations that cancel return decisions after a certain period of time and believes that such decisions undermine the objectives of the directive;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses that unaccompanied minors should never be returned unless it can be demonstrated that it is in the child's best interest;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution 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 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Highlights the importance of providing individual case management and assistance, tailored to the individual circumstances and prospects of the returnee when assisting in assisted voluntary return in all stages of the process, with particular attention for unaccompanied minors;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution 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, stresses the importance that this information need to be accessible to the persons concerned, in particular in a language he or she understands; expresses concerns regarding the frequent lack of sufficient detail and motivation in return decisions;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution 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; takes the view that unaccompanied children should not be returned and that children should be informed in a child-friendly manner and in a language that they understand about their rights and remedies;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that the directive requires return and entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that return and entry-ban decisions
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that return and entry-ban decisions on removal
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution 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 127 #
Motion for a resolution 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 and the relevant deadlines;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Notes that the bilateral readmission agreements used pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Directive do not offer adequate procedural safeguards, including notification to the person concerned of an individual measure and information on available and effective remedies to appeal; regrets the recurrent practice of some Member States to continue to apply to other bilateral readmission agreements with another Member State or with a third Country instead of applying Article 6(1) of the Directive.
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Recalls that the principle of non- refoulement is binding on Member States in all circumstances, including for return procedures not falling within the scope of application of the return directive;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 31 a (new) - having regard to the Australian migration model;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Highlights that the possibility offered by Article 2 paragraph 2 (A) not to apply the Directive to third-country national who are subject to a refusal of entry is creating parallel regimes which do not offer the same procedural guarantees as those provided for by the Directive and may lead to numerous violations of fundamental rights;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution 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; notes, however, that most countries only attempt to enforce returns in the event of imminent danger to public order; points out that the procedure is often exhausted or repeated endlessly so as to obtain a residence permit after all; notes that children are conceived during on-going procedures and are subsequently used to invoke humanitarian grounds to obtain a residence permit.
Amendment 132 #
9. Highlights that the directive allows for the temporary suspension of the enforcement of a removal
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Highlights that the directive allows for the temporary suspension of the enforcement of a removal, pending a decision relating to return;
Amendment 134 #
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, other fundamental rights violations or because of health that does not allow the execution of the return decision without posing excessive risks; notes that in most countries, appeal against return is not automatically suspensive, which may diminish protection and increase administrative burdens; calls on Member States to grant automatic suspensive effect;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution 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; stresses that the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration for all decisions concerning children, including pending decisions relating to return;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution 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 137 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Highlights that the directive allows for the temporary suspension of the enforcement of a removal, pending a decision relating to return;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the Commission has only assessed the implementation of the Return Directive once (in 2014), despite the legal obligation under Article 19 of the directive to report on its application every three years, starting from 2013;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Notes
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution 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, which is leaving unreturnable migrants often unable to access their fundamental rights, including access to healthcare, housing, education and justice; 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;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution 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 147 #
Motion for a resolution 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, particularly in cases of non-refoulement involving vulnerable persons and groups; 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;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution 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, reduce labour exploitation and facilitate individuals’ social inclusion and contribution to society; calls on Member States to expand their use of Article 6(4) of the directive;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the Commission has only assessed the implementation of the Return Directive once (in 2014), despite the legal obligation under Article 19 of the directive to report on its application every three years, starting from 2013; whereas despite its commitment in its 2014 Communication to table legislative amendments to the Return Directive only after a thorough evaluation of its implementation, the Commission released a proposal for a recast in 2018;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution 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 facilitating the granting of residence permits to individuals who cannot return to their
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Notes that the effective implementation of the Directive is hampered by the lack of access to legal aid and interpreters due to limited capacity and funding; considers that more funds should be made available for the provision of legal assistance, especially funding for civil society professionals offering legal assistance;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Regrets, however, that once a safe return becomes possible, most Member States often do not replace provisional residence permits with mandatory orders to return; regrets further that, as a result, a temporary residence permit is, de facto, often assimilated to a permanent residence permit;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Notes the significant differences between Member States in the right to appeal, especially the type of appeal body and the appeal time-limits; stresses the need to guarantee the right to an effective remedy, including by providing proper and accessible information and legal aid;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Notes with regret that the use of Article 6(4) by some Member States leads to the granting of permanent residence permits, even in cases where the obstacle to a return is temporary;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Notes with concern the widespread automatic imposition of entry bans, which in some Member States are enforced alongside voluntary departure; stresses that this approach risks reducing incentives to comply with a return decision; calls on Member States to comply with the obligation of the Directive to consider withdrawing or suspending the ban in cases where a third-country national can demonstrate that he or she has left the territory of a Member State;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas in September 2018, without carrying out an impact assessment, the Commission presented a proposal to recast the Directive to achieve a more effective and coherent return policy;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Notes with concern the widespread automatic imposition of entry bans, which in some Member States are enforced alongside voluntary departure; stresses that this approach risks reducing incentives to comply with a return decision and urges Member States to consider reviewing this practise;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Is aware that imposing entry bans is necessary in order to stop a carousel of applications, refusals and orders to leave the territory in the different Member States; notes that this results in an enormous administrative burden for the Member States concerned and perpetuates the legal uncertainty of those concerned; considers that the persons concerned are thus not encouraged to build a future in their country of origin;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Notes that the situation of a person may vary during the period imposed by the entry ban and that a person may find himself or herself at risk of persecution in the country he or she has been returned while being unable to enter the Union because of an existing entry ban; calls on Member States to lift the entry ban based on humanitarian considerations in such cases;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Reiterates that, in view of the formally non-punitive nature of return measures, an entry ban should not be used as a generic punitive measure but should instead be based on an individual assessment;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 b (new) 11b. Considers that imposing lengthy entry bans consists of an undeniably punitive measure and contributes to a logic of criminalisation of migration; calls upon the Member State to have accessible procedures in place for requesting the lifting of an entry ban, in which an individual assessment is guaranteed, with due account to the best interests of the child, the right to family life and the principle of proportionality;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12.
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Stresses that
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas the effectiveness of return policy at EU level is not high, and a fall in the effectiveness of returns has even been noted;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Stresses that
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Stresses that
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Stresses that
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Stresses that
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Recognises that the imposition of entry bans together with orders to leave the territory constitute a necessary two- pronged approach; recognises further that that where this would discourage the person concerned from returning voluntarily, their forced return would be in accordance with Article 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Stresses that entry bans have
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Stresses that entry bans have been particularly
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Stresses that
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. Whereas migration to the Union has increased since the common European asylum system was launched;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution 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 and encourages others to adopt similar policies, but stresses that children’s interests should also be a primary consideration when deciding on the entry ban of their parents;
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 182 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Stresses the importance of an accelerated border procedure that would apply to persons whose asylum applications have been rejected in the course of asylum procedures at the border and would help to speed up the adoption and enforcement of return decisions at external borders;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Stresses that the detention of irregular migrants to be returned should always be considered a measure of last resort and should always be subject to time limits and safeguards for those being deprived of their personal freedom; calls on the Member States to implement alternative measures to detention that are less coercive and radical;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Notes differences in the transposition into national legislations of the definition of the ‘risk of absconding’
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14.
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Notes differences in the transposition into national legislations of the definition of the ‘risk of absconding’
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Notes differences in the transposition into national legislations of the definition of the ‘risk of absconding’ and that clarification on this is needed to ensure grounds for detention are clearly defined; reiterates that Article 3(7) of the directive provides that the existence of such a risk should always be assessed on the basis of objective criteria defined by law;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A b (new) Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Highlights that to comply with Article 3(7) of the Directive, due consideration needs to be given to the individual circumstances of the person involved when identifying a risk of absconding to justify detention;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Is concerned that the legislation of several Member States includes extensive lists of ‘objective criteria’ for defining the risk of absconding, amongst which general criteria such as the mere lack of identity documents, which establishes a de facto presumption of risk of absconding towards all undocumented migrants issued with a return decision, or the inability to provide a formal address or the lack of money; regrets that these criteria which are often applied in a more or less automatic way, while individual circumstances are of marginal consideration;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Is concerned that the legislation of several Member States includes extensive and sometimes divergent 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; underlines the need for a harmonized and exhaustive common Union list of objective criteria to establish the risk of absconding;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Is concerned 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; stresses that this has led to detention being imposed in a systematic manner in many Member States despite the significant costs of detention over alternatives to detention;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15.
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Is concerned that
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15.
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Stresses that, in line with international human rights law, detention must be prescribed by law and be necessary, reasonable and proportional to the objectives to be achieved and it should last for the shortest time possible, and that a decision to impose a detention measure always has to be based on an individual assessment of the individual circumstances, in which the individual interests have been taken into account;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution 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 20 #
Motion for a resolution 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 effectiveness and recommends to diminish many safeguards of the directive, such as the right to appeal and to make use of longer detention periods;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Recalls that detention must remain a measure of last resort, is the exception and not the rule, because detention, regardless of the length of the detention, has deleterious psychological effects on the people subject to it;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Considers that the failure to comply with an order to leave the territory voluntarily in and of itself constitutes an objective criterion to decide that there is a risk of absconding;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 b (new) 15b. Reiterates that longer detention does not increase the chance of return, is more costly than the alternatives to detention, and that states should not automatically rely on the maximum period permissible under the directive, and should ensure that all conditions for lawful detention are fulfilled throughout the detention period;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16.
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the directive establishes that returnees may lawfully be detained where other less coercive measures cannot be applied;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the directive establishes that returnees may lawfully be detained
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution 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 207 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the directive establishes that returnees may lawfully be detained where other less coercive measures cannot be applied;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the directive establishes that returnees may lawfully be detained only where other less coercive measures cannot be applied and for the shortest period possible; 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; draws attention to the fact that several studies indicate that longer periods of detention are not conducive to higher rate of returns;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution 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; applauds Member States who have introduced legislation clearly stating that detention is not justified if there is no reasonable prospect of removal;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the directive establishes
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Calls on Member States to respect the mandates of relevant and competent national and international bodies, such as National Human Rights Institutions, Ombuds institutions and National Preventive Mechanisms, conducting independent oversight of the conditions of detention;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 b (new) 16b. Emphasises that the directive establishes that detention is unlawful if there is no reasonable prospect of removal; deplores that several Member States allow detention based on national security considerations independent on whether there is a reasonable prospect of removal;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution 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, as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has clarified that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests; is aware that these rights have a perverse effect in that parents are encouraged to send their children in advance to the desired country of migration; considers that as a result minors are exposed to greater danger during their journey to and stay in the country of arrival; maintains that it is in the interest of all children to discourage this form of child abuse by parents as much as possible; is also aware that adults often pretend to be minors in order to invoke children's rights;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Notes that a significant number of alleged children are still detained in the European Union as part of return procedures, which constitutes a direct violation of the UN
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution 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, as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has clarified that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests also in line with the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants of 19 September 2016; Stresses the importance for Member States to work out alternatives to detention, such as community-based placements for children;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution 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, as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has clarified that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests; calls on Member States to provide adequate, humane and non-custodial alternatives to detention when in the best interest the child and where necessary to guarantee their safety;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Notes that a significant number of children are still detained in the European Union as part of return procedures, which
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution 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, as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has clarified that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests, particularly as it can have incredibly damaging effects on their mental health;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution 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, as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has clarified that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests; calls for an end to the detention of children;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Condemns the fact that thousands of migrants have posed as children even though they were adults, thereby unfairly invoking rights granted under the UN Convention on the rights of the Child;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Calls on Member States to ensure the proper implementation of the directive
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Calls on Member States to ensure the proper implementation of the directive in all its aspects; calls on the Commission to continue monitoring this implementation
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Calls on Member States to ensure the proper implementation of the directive in all its aspects; calls on the Commission to continue monitoring this implementation
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18a. Welcomes the release, in different countries, of persons detained only on the grounds of their immigration status whose return within a reasonable time frame was no longer possible because of the COVID-19 pandemic; regrets that the Commission recommendations related to detention in its Communication of 16 April 2020 on COVID-19 did not take into account the measures recommended by the WHO and the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas sustainable returns and successful reintegration are important indicators in the assessment of the effectiveness of returns; whereas currently post-return monitoring is not sufficiently comprehensive and accurate; whereas evidence has emerged that not all returns are sustainable, especially in relation to unaccompanied minors, due to a lack of a personal reintegration plan or support upon return;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Calls on the Commission
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution 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, w
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. C
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution 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;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution 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, financing, capacity
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution 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 237 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Maintains that after arrival in their home countries, returnees are no longer the responsibility of the EU and the Member States but of their countries of origin; maintains further that development aid should be withheld from countries which refuse to take responsibility for their subjects;
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Regrets that informal agreements with third countries are completed in absence of duly parliamentary scrutiny and democratic and judicial oversight that formal readmission agreements require;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution 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;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas the Commission has noted that Member States face several barriers to effective returns, of a procedural, technical and operational nature, inter alia the level of cooperation among all stakeholders involved, including with third countries; whereas identification of returnees and the need to obtain the necessary documentation from third countries has been identified by the Commission as the main reason for non-return;
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.
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas the Commission, in its action plan on return published in 2015, expressed the view that voluntary returns were the preferred option whenever possible; whereas - again, as stated by the Commission in its action plan - 'it is estimated that around 40% of returns were voluntary departures, from just 14% in 2009';
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas Member States' use of the possibility in Article 2(2)(a) not to apply the Directive in "border cases" has created parallel regimes, where procedures offer less safeguards, including absence of a voluntary return term, of suspensive effect of appeals and less restrictions on detention; whereas there is a high risk of push-back and refoulement at external borders;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C b (new) Cb. whereas the evaluations carried out by the Commission when publishing its recommendation on making returns more effective indicated that 'the margins of discretion left to the Member States by Directive 2008/115/EC led to an inconsistent transposition in national legislations, with a negative impact on the effectiveness of the Union return policy' and that 'a more effective implementation of that Directive would reduce possibilities of misuse of procedures and remove inefficiencies, while ensuring the protection of fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union';
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C b (new) Cb. whereas, according to the Commission's estimates, 300 000 people per year can not be returned due to administrative barriers, health issues or risk of non-refoulement; whereas their situation should be addressed, including by granting them a legal status based on humanitarian grounds;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas disaggregated and comparable data relating to the implementation of the directive is
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution 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 30 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Г D. whereas disaggregated and comparable data relating to the implementation of the directive is often not collected or publicly available in the different Member States;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas disaggregated and comparable data on detention and entry bans relating to the implementation of the directive is often not collected or publicly available;
Amendment 32 #
Da. whereas, according to IOM data, around 81,000 African migrants returned to their home nation with the aid of the UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) and that such Joint initiative which costed the European Union €357 million was to be considered largely a failure1a; _________________ 1a https://www.euronews.com/2020/06/19/pa ying-for-migrants-to-go-back-home-how- the-eu-s-voluntary-return-scheme-is- failing-the-de
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution 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 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Г a (new) Aa. whereas efficient returns are a key component of migration management which can have a positive impact both for the asylum system and for secondary movements;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. Whereas the lack of harmonization has a deep impact on return practices among Member States;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution 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) 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) 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 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution 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 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution 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; welcomes in this regard the Regulation (EU) 2020/851 amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection, invites Member States to collect statistics on this basis as soon as possible and participate in the pilot studies;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Reiterates the importance of an evidence-based common 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 open-code qualitative and quantitative data on the implementation of the directive;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Reiterates the importance of an evidence-based approach to guide coherent policy-making and
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses the need for a common approach to EU cooperation with third countries and a common approach to cooperation within the EU; the common approach with third countries could include, inter alia, the use of levers focusing on the implementation of incentives that link the application of those incentives to the implementation of commitments in the field of returns and readmission; the common approach within the EU could include, inter alia, support to front-line countries, cooperation between Member States in the field of the identification of illegally- staying persons and the issuance of travel documents, and in the reception of persons;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes also that, based on figures provided by the EPRS, there were, for example, 511047 illegal border crossings in 2016 and 204734 in 2017; considers that given the nature of illegal border crossings, the real figure is presumably much higher; notes that according to EUROSTAT figures from 2019 only a fraction of those ordered to leave actually returned; notes further that the potential repeated counting of persons ordered to leave several times, whether by different Member States or not, does nothing to reduce the problem but rather illustrates the problems with the current return policy;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Regrets that the latest policy proposals on return made by the Commission are not based on any impact assessment and focus on diminishing the fundamental rights safeguards that have been enshrined in the 2008 Return Directive; points that changes in this direction will lead to a violation of the fundamental rights of the people concerned that have experienced trauma in their home countries, on their journey to the Union or within the Union;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Notes that in the period November 2017 to 2019, FRONTEX repatriated only 171 people with charter flights at a total cost of EUR 1 380 7541 a; notes further that these figures show that a return policy is virtually non-existent at EU level; _________________ 1a figures based on the reply by Frontex of 12 May 2020 to parliamentary question E-1507/2020 by Filip De Man MEP
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 12 b (new) - - Having Regard to the Conclusions of the European Council of October 2016 and June 2018,
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Stresses
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution 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,
Amendment 53 #
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, 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 difficulties in cooperation with third countries or for humanitarian reasons, or people return voluntarily without their return being registered; stresses than an effective return policy is a key element of a well-functioning EU asylum and migration policy;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution 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, 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 difficulties in cooperation with third countries or for humanitarian reasons; recognises, on the other hand, that potential double counting in relation to several return decisions does not reduce the problem, but merely illustrates the problems with the return policy;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution 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, 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 difficulties in cooperation with third countries or for humanitarian reasons; highlights that this focus on the return rate overlooks also the persons that can not be returned, including because of the risk of refoulement;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Stresses that the Commission’s statement that the return rate decreased
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution 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 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the Member States to allocate adequate capacity, including human resources and sufficient training, to authorities responsible for taking return decisions and implementation, so as to invest in the quality of them;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 18 Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Stresses the importance of improving the effective implementation of the directive; calls on the Commission to make better implementation of the directive a priority and to launch infringement procedures where justified; highlights that such effectiveness should not only be measured in quantitative terms by referring to the return rate, but also in qualitative terms,
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Stresses the importance of improving the effective implementation of the fundamental rights safeguards enshrined in the directive; highlights that
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Stresses the importance of improving the effective implementation of the directive
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Stresses the importance of improving the effective implementation of the directive
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Stresses the importance of improving the effective implementation of the directive; highlights that such
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Stresses the importance of significantly improving the effective implementation of the directive; highlights that such effectiveness should not only be measured in quantitative terms by referring to the return rate, but also in qualitative terms, such as the sustainability of returns and fundamental rights;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Draws attention to the need to increase the transparency and speed of procedures for issuing return decisions, as this will make it more common for such decisions to be issued at the same time as or immediately after decisions to end legal residence, e.g. in the event of a negative asylum decision or the expiry of a visa or residence permit;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Notes that the use of the optional clause in Article2(2)(a), is leading to the creation of parallel regimes, offering diminished safeguards in borders compared to the regular return procedure and enhancing the risks of push backs and refoulement; urges therefore Member States not to apply the optional clause foreseen in article 2( 2) ( a) to border situations
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Notes that the Commission has stated that the lack of third country identification and readmission of returnees is one of the main reasons for non-return; stresses the need for improving the relations with third countries in a constructive migration dialogue to ensure a mutually beneficial cooperation for effective and sustainable returns;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 21 a (new) - having regard to the Council of Europe's 2019 Handbook on alternatives to immigration detention;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Commission to harmonise the rules on return, including through the adoption of a regulation, in order to eliminate differences between Member States' systems and to increase the implementation of return decisions, with the support also of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency;
Amendment 71 #
4a. Calls on Member States to apply the directive to border situations as well, ensuring procedural safeguards and respect for human rights at borders;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Regrets the informalisation of cooperation with third countries; calls on the Member States to support the Commission to conclude formal EU readmission agreements, thereby coupled with EU parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight; stresses that incentives, including financial, should be offered to facilitate cooperation;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Recalls that return procedures are hampered by the failure of third-country nationals to cooperate, and that Member States themselves do not have sufficient tools to enable the competent authorities to swiftly exchange the necessary information in relation with return operations;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Expresses concerns regarding the conclusion of informal deals on readmission that bypass parliamentary scrutiny and democratic and judicial oversight; calls on Member States and the Commission to end this practice;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Invites the Commission to carry out a follow-up study of those who have been the subject of a removal order; recalls that in order to encourage voluntary returns, member states should provide assistance and counselling to people who are the subject of a return decision; stresses that it would be interesting to study the sustainability of returns with and without specific support;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution 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 78 #
Motion for a resolution 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, as voluntary returns tend to be more sustainable, less costly and cumbersome for states, and more apt to respect the fundamental rights of the person concerned;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution 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, also highlighting that the voluntary nature of the departure should not endanger the implementation of the return decision;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 21 a (new) - having regard to the Frontex evaluation report 15 of June 2020 on return operations 2nd semester 2019,
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Stresses the importance of ensuring compliance with return decisions and
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution 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; stresses equally that an effective return policy is essential to keep migration manageable;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution 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 as these return decisions are more sustainable in the long-term;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution 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 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 85 #
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; as they prove to be more sustainable;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Stresses the importance of ensuring compliance with return decisions and recalls th
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Stresses the importance of ensuring compliance
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution 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 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission to continue considering voluntary returns as the preferred option over forced returns and to encourage Member States to develop an effective framework in order to give irregular migrants easy access to voluntary return programmes;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 21 b (new) Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on Member States to share information and best practices on successful and humane voluntary returns, and to provide operational assistance among Member States when requested to strengthen and improve the operational effectiveness of voluntary returns;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses the need for further measures to be introduced concerning the forced return of persons and suggests that Member States should acquire more freedom to control suspected illegal migration for their status;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Considers it vital that assisted voluntary return programmes are designed in such a way as to avoid encouraging migrants to travel to Europe irregularly in order to benefit from such programmes; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to fulfil its commitments and assess whether differences between Member States' voluntary return and reintegration programmes might not lead to a situation where migrants cherry-pick the Member States offering the best conditions;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution 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 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Calls on the Commission to continue to fund and increase the resources available to Member States and governmental and non-governmental partners, in order to encourage assisted voluntary return programmes with the ultimate aim of ensuring sustainable returns and reintegration;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights that under Article 7 of the directive, a return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution 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, 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; recalls that Member States which provide this period for voluntary departure only following an application, must inform the third-country nationals concerned;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution 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, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case;
source: 655.606
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2021-12-18Show (13) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE653.716New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-PR-653716_EN.html |
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE655.606New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AM-655606_EN.html |
| docs/2 |
|
| events/0/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
| events/1/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
| events/2/type |
Old
Committee report tabled for plenary, single readingNew
Committee report tabled for plenary |
| events/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20201214&type=CRENew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-9-2020-12-14-TOC_EN.html |
| events/4 |
|
| events/4 |
|
| events/5 |
|
| events/5/type |
Old
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Decision by Parliament |
2021-02-16Show (8) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| events/2 |
|
| events/2 |
|
| events/3 |
|
| events/4 |
|
| forecasts |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament's voteNew
Procedure completed |
2020-12-09Show (5) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| events/1 |
|
| events/2 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament's vote |
2020-10-07Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| forecasts/0/date |
Old
2020-11-11T00:00:00New
2020-12-14T00:00:00 |
2020-08-11Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE655.606
|
2020-07-10Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/date |
Old
2020-07-09T00:00:00New
2020-07-10T00:00:00 |
2020-07-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1 |
|
2020-06-24Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| forecasts/0/date |
Old
2020-09-14T00:00:00New
2020-11-11T00:00:00 |
2020-06-16Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs |
|
2020-02-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| forecasts |
|
2020-01-07Show (3) Changes
| events |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |