En En Amendments

European Parliament 2019-2024

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

2018/0329(COD)

28.9.2020

AMENDMENTS 120 - 754

Draft report Tineke Strik (PE648.370v01-00)

Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (recast)

Proposal for a directive (COM(2018)0634 – C8-0407/2018 – 2018/0329(COD))

AM\1214327EN.docx PE658.738v01-00

EN United in diversityEN AM_Com_LegReport

PE658.738v01-00 2/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 120 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Draft legislative resolution Paragraph 1

Draft legislative resolution Amendment

1. Adopts its position at first reading 1. Proposal for a rejection hereinafter set out, taking into account the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.

Or. en

Amendment 121 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Title 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Proposal for a Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on common standards and procedures in on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally Member States for returning irregularly staying third-country nationals (recast) staying third-country nationals (recast) A contribution from the European A contribution from the European Commission to the Leaders’ meeting in Commission to the Leaders’ meeting in Salzburg on 19-20 September 2018 Salzburg on 19-20 September 2018

Or. en

Justification

This is a horizontal amendment, linked to amendments to recitals 6,9, 10,22, 25, 32, 40 and 47 and Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 22

AM\1214327EN.docx 3/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 122 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Title 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

The word "illegal" is not considered as relevant in the context of migration. It will be replaced in the whole text by "irregular". International bodies including the United Nations General Assembly and International Organization for Migration have all recommended to use instead the terms “irregular” or “undocumented”. This is a horizontal amendment linked to articles 1,2,3,4,8,10,13,14,15 and 22.

Amendment 123 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(2) An effective and fair return policy (2) The external borders of the is an essential part of the Union’s approach Member States are the borders of the to better manage migration in all aspects, Union. A joint return policy that is both as reflected in the European Agenda on effective and respectful of the rights of Migration of May 201511. illegally staying migrants is an essential part of the Union’s approach to better manage migration in all aspects, as reflected in the European Agenda on Migration of May 201511. ______

PE658.738v01-00 4/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN 11 11 COM(2015)285. 11 11 COM(2015)285.

Or. it

Amendment 124 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(2) An effective and fair return policy (2) A dignified, humane, rights-based is an essential part of the Union's policy should be the basis of the Union's approach to better manage migration in all approach to better manage migration in all aspects, as reflected in the European aspects. Agenda on Migration of May 201511 . ______11 COM(2015) 285 final.

Or. en

Amendment 125 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(2) An effective and fair return policy (2) An effective and fair return policy is an essential part of the Union's approach is an essential part of the Union's approach to better manage migration in all aspects, to better manage migration in all aspects in as reflected in the European Agenda on a more balanced way, as reflected in the Migration of May 201511 . European Agenda on Migration of May 201511. ______11 11 COM(2015) 285 final. 11 11 COM(2015) 285 final.

Or. fr

AM\1214327EN.docx 5/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 126 Charlie Weimers, Emmanouil Fragkos

Proposal for a directive Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(2) An effective and fair return policy (2) An effective, efficient and swift is an essential part of the Union's approach return policy is an essential part of the to better manage migration in all aspects, Union's approach to better manage as reflected in the European Agenda on migration in all aspects, as reflected in the Migration of May 201511 . European Agenda on Migration of May 201511 . ______11 COM(2015) 285 final. 11 COM(2015) 285 final.

Or. en

Amendment 127 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(3) On 28 June 2018, in its deleted conclusions, the European Council underlined the necessity to significantly step up the effective return of irregular migrants, and welcomed the intention of the Commission to make legislative proposals for a more effective and coherent European return policy.

Or. en

Amendment 128 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 3

PE658.738v01-00 6/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(3) On 28 June 2018, in its (3) The rate of return of migrants in conclusions, the European Council irregular situations in the Union remains underlined the necessity to significantly too low. As stressed by the European step up the effective return of irregular Council on 28 June 2018, in its migrants, and welcomed the intention of conclusions, it is necessary to adopt an the Commission to make legislative effective and coherent European return proposals for a more effective and policy with a view to significantly stepping coherent European return policy. up the effective return of irregular migrants through the improvement of return and readmission procedures, including through the conclusion of new bilateral readmission agreements and by ensuring that existing agreements are fully applied.

Or. it

Amendment 129 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(3) On 28 June 2018, in its (3) On 28 June 2018, in its conclusions, the European Council conclusions, the European Council underlined the necessity to significantly underlined the necessity to significantly step up the effective return of irregular step up the effective return of irregular migrants, and welcomed the intention of migrants, and welcomed the intention of the Commission to make legislative the Commission to make legislative proposals for a more effective and coherent proposals for a more effective and coherent European return policy. European return policy. These conclusions were adopted in a context where the effective return rate was only 36.6% in 2017, which is wholly inadequate.

Or. fr

Amendment 130 Tom Vandendriessche, Nicolas Bay

Proposal for a directive Recital 3

AM\1214327EN.docx 7/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. On 28 June 2018, in its (3) On 28 June 2018, in its conclusions, the European Council conclusions, the European Council underlined the necessity to significantly underlined the necessity to significantly step up the effective return of irregular step up the effective return of illegal migrants, and welcomed the intention of migrants and failed asylum seekers, and the Commission to make legislative welcomed the intention of the Commission proposals for a more effective and coherent to make legislative proposals for a more European return policy. effective and coherent European return policy. (This amendment applies throughout the entire text.)

Or. nl

Justification

The new term ‘irregular migration’ creates uncertainty surrounding the essential characteristic of illegal immigration, namely that it is immigration that contravenes the law.

Amendment 131 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(3a) On 19 December 2018, the United Nations General Assembly endorsed the UN Global Compact on Migration. States committed in this text to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non- arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorised officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. They also committed to prioritize non-custodial alternatives to detention that are in line with

PE658.738v01-00 8/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 132 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(3a) The implementation of joint awareness-raising campaigns in third countries on the risks inherent in irregular migration and on the Union’s return policy should be strengthened.

Or. it

Amendment 133 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 9/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN irregular migration and ensures coherence irregular migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system. the legal migration system. These common standards cannot, however, infringe in any way Member States’ sovereign right and obligation, in accordance with Article 15 of the ECHR amongst others, to defend and safeguard their territories and populations against the nefarious consequences of unfettered legal or illegal migration.

Or. nl

Justification

There is no hierarchy in the articles of the ECHR. All articles carry equal weight.

Amendment 134 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(4) That European return policy should (4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons be based on common standards, for persons to be returned in a humane manner and to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity , as well as international rights and dignity , as well as international law, including refugee protection and law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations. Clear, human rights obligations. Clear, transparent and fair rules need to be transparent and fair rules need to be established to provide for an effective established to provide for an effective return policy which serves as a deterrent European return policy. to irregular migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system .

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 10/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

The shadow rapporteur wants to keep the wording of the previous directive.

Amendment 135 Charlie Weimers, Emmanouil Fragkos

Proposal for a directive Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(4) That European return policy should (4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for be based on common standards and persons to be returned in a humane international law, and in close cooperation manner and with full respect for their with third countries to ensure effective fundamental rights and dignity , as well and swift return procedures. An effective as international law, including refugee return policy includes the substantial protection and human rights obligations. increase of the rate of return, serves as a Clear, transparent and fair rules need to deterrent to irregular migration and ensures be established to provide for an effective coherence with and contributes to the return policy which serves as a deterrent to Common European Asylum System and irregular migration and ensures coherence the legal migration system . with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system .

Or. en

Amendment 136 Maria Grapini

Proposal for a directive Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 11/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN return policy which serves as a deterrent to established to provide for an effective irregular migration and ensures coherence return policy which serves as a deterrent to with and contributes to the integrity of the irregular migration and ensures coherence Common European Asylum System and with and contributes to the integrity of the the legal migration system. Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system.

Or. ro

Amendment 137 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(4) That European return policy (4) Member States should not be should be based on common standards, for obliged to adopt and implement a return persons to be returned in a humane manner policy. If a Member State chooses to do and with full respect for their fundamental so, its return policy should be only rights and dignity , as well as international voluntary and based on common law, including refugee protection and standards, for persons to be returned in a human rights obligations. Clear, humane manner and with full respect for transparent and fair rules need to be their fundamental rights and dignity , as established to provide for an effective well as international law, including refugee return policy which serves as a deterrent protection, protection of the rights of the to irregular migration and ensures child, protection of persons in vulnerable coherence with and contributes to the situation, protection of stateless persons integrity of the Common European and other human rights obligations. Clear, Asylum System and the legal migration transparent and rights-based rules need to system . be established.

Or. en

Amendment 138 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(4) That European return policy should (4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons be based on common standards, for persons

PE658.738v01-00 12/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN to be returned in a humane manner and to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity, as well as international rights and dignity, as well as international law, including refugee protection and law. Clear, transparent and fair rules need human rights obligations. Clear, to be established to provide for an effective transparent and fair rules need to be return policy which serves as a deterrent to established to provide for an effective irregular migration, reduces incentives for return policy which serves as a deterrent to illegal migration and ensures coherence irregular migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system. the legal migration system.

Or. fr

Amendment 139 Tom Vandendriessche, Nicolas Bay

Proposal for a directive Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(4) That European return policy should (4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons be based on common standards, for persons to be returned in a humane manner and to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity , as well as international rights and dignity , as well as international law, including refugee protection and law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations. Clear, human rights obligations. Clear, transparent and fair rules need to be transparent and fair rules need to be established to provide for an effective established to provide for an effective return policy which serves as a deterrent to return policy which serves as a deterrent to irregular migration and ensures coherence illegal migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system. the legal migration system. (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)

Or. nl

Justification

The word ‘illegal’ is to be preferred for reasons of clarity. The issue at hand is migration that

AM\1214327EN.docx 13/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN does not comply with the law.

Amendment 140 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(5) This Directive should establish a (5) This Directive should establish a horizontal set of rules, applicable to all horizontal set of rules, applicable to all third-country nationals who do not or who third-country nationals who do not or who no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in a Member State. stay or residence in a Member State. These horizontal rules should not impede sovereign Member States from imposing stricter rules on third country citizens as befits each Member State’s particular social and economic situation.

Or. nl

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to recital 3 (as amended) on the need for an effective return policy and recital 4 on Member State sovereignty.

Amendment 141 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 14/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN standard forms for decisions related to issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions return, namely return decisions and, if on removal, Member States should respect issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions that principle and fully comply with all on removal, Member States should respect applicable provisions of this Directive. that principle and fully comply with all Member States should not limit applicable provisions of this Directive. themselves to taking decisions but should also implement them, using all legal means at their disposal, including temporary detention preceding repatriation without delay.

Or. nl

Justification

This amendment on effective implementation is linked to recital 3 on the need for an effective return policy.

Amendment 142 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(6) Member States should ensure that (6) Member States should ensure that, the ending of illegal stay of third-country when a third-country national is found to nationals is carried out through a fair and be staying irregularly, a procedure should transparent procedure. According to be established to check whether his or her general principles of EU law, decisions stay should be regularised based on his or taken under this Directive should be her existing ties to the Member State adopted on a case-by-case basis and based through a rights-based, fair and transparent on objective criteria, implying that procedure. According to general principles consideration should go beyond the mere of EU law, decisions taken under this fact of an illegal stay. When using Directive should be adopted on a case-by- standard forms for decisions related to case basis and based on objective criteria, return, namely return decisions and, if implying that consideration should go issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions beyond the mere fact of an irregular stay. on removal, Member States should respect No provisions under this Directive should that principle and fully comply with all undermine the principle of individualised applicable provisions of this Directive. decision-making and prevent an examination of the circumstances of each individual case.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 15/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Justification

These changes are in line with the changes proposed in recital 4.

Amendment 143 Maria Grapini

Proposal for a directive Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(6) Member States should ensure that (6) Member States should ensure that the ending of illegal stay of third-country the ending of illegal stay of third-country nationals is carried out through a fair and nationals is carried out through a fair, transparent procedure. According to humane and transparent procedure, with general principles of EU law, decisions more effective return procedures. taken under this Directive should be According to general principles of EU law, adopted on a case-by-case basis and based decisions taken under this Directive should on objective criteria, implying that be adopted on a case-by-case basis and consideration should go beyond the mere based on objective criteria, implying that fact of an illegal stay. When using standard consideration should go beyond the mere forms for decisions related to return, fact of an illegal stay. When using standard namely return decisions and, if issued, forms for decisions related to return, entry-ban decisions and decisions on namely return decisions and, if issued, removal, Member States should respect entry-ban decisions and decisions on that principle and fully comply with all removal, Member States should respect applicable provisions of this Directive. that principle and fully comply with all applicable provisions of this Directive.

Or. ro

Amendment 144 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(6) Member States should ensure that (6) Member States should ensure that the ending of illegal stay of third-country the ending of irregular stay of third- nationals is carried out through a fair and country nationals is carried out through a transparent procedure. According to fair and transparent procedure. According general principles of EU law, decisions to general principles of EU law, decisions taken under this Directive should be taken under this Directive should be

PE658.738v01-00 16/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN adopted on a case-by-case basis and based adopted on a case-by-case basis and based on objective criteria, implying that on objective criteria, implying that consideration should go beyond the mere consideration should go beyond the mere fact of an illegal stay. When using standard fact of an irregular stay. When using forms for decisions related to return, standard forms for decisions related to namely return decisions and, if issued, return, namely return decisions and, if entry-ban decisions and decisions on issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions removal, Member States should respect on removal, Member States should respect that principle and fully comply with all that principle and fully comply with all applicable provisions of this Directive. applicable provisions of this Directive.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 145 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(7) The link between the decision on deleted ending of the legal stay of a third-country national and the issuing of a return decision should be reinforced in order to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised secondary movements. It is necessary to ensure that a return decision is issued immediately after the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or ideally in the same act or decision. That requirement should in particular apply to cases where an application for international protection is rejected, provided that the return procedure is suspended until that rejection becomes final and pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection.

AM\1214327EN.docx 17/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Or. en

Justification

In different member states, decisions on asylum are not issued by the same authorities. The separation between the two authorities is a guarantee of independence. This recital is linked to the amendment on article 8.

Amendment 146 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

This recital is deleted in line with amendments tabled to Article 8 (6)

Amendment 147 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Olivier Chastel, Michal Šimečka

Proposal for a directive

PE658.738v01-00 18/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(7) The link between the decision on (7) The link between the decision on ending of the legal stay of a third-country ending of the legal stay of a third-country national and the issuing of a return decision national and the issuing of a return decision should be reinforced in order to reduce the should be reinforced in order to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised secondary movements. It is unauthorised secondary movements. It is necessary to ensure that a return decision is necessary to ensure that a return decision is issued immediately after the decision issued immediately after the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or ideally in the same act or decision. That ideally in the same act or decision. That requirement should in particular apply to requirement should in particular apply to cases where an application for international cases where an application for international protection is rejected, provided that the protection is rejected. This should always return procedure is suspended until that be under the condition that the full scope rejection becomes final and pending the of the principle of non-refoulement under outcome of an appeal against that rejection. European and international law is individually assessed in the asylum procedure and that the return procedure is automatically suspended until that rejection becomes final and pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection.

Or. en

Justification

Not all Member States fully assess the aspect of refoulement under the return acquis during the asylum procedure, or in taking the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay. Also, such immediate issuing of a return decision should not frustrate possible efforts to lodge an appeal, or invoking other grounds to stay, and the right to remain on the territory during such appeals.

Amendment 148 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 19/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN should be reinforced in order to reduce the and its actual execution should be risk of absconding and the likelihood of reinforced in order to reduce the risk of unauthorised secondary movements. It is absconding and the likelihood of necessary to ensure that a return decision is unauthorised secondary movements. It is issued immediately after the decision necessary to ensure that a return decision is rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or issued and executed at the same time as ideally in the same act or decision. That the decision rejecting or terminating the requirement should in particular apply to legal stay. That requirement should in cases where an application for international particular apply to cases where an protection is rejected, provided that the application for international protection is return procedure is suspended until that rejected, provided that the return procedure rejection becomes final and pending the is suspended until that rejection becomes outcome of an appeal against that rejection. final and pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection. There should be only one possibility of appeal, and there should be prima facie procedural reasons for declaring an appeal admissible.

Or. nl

Amendment 149 Charlie Weimers, Emmanouil Fragkos

Proposal for a directive Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(7) The link between the decision on (7) The link between the decision on ending of the legal stay of a third-country ending of the legal stay of a third-country national and the issuing of a return decision national and the issuing of a return decision should be reinforced in order to reduce the should be reinforced in order to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised secondary movements. It is unauthorised secondary movements. It is necessary to ensure that a return decision is necessary to ensure that a return decision is issued immediately after the decision issued immediately after the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or ideally in the same act or decision. That ideally in the same act or decision. That requirement should in particular apply to requirement should in particular apply to cases where an application for international cases where an application for international protection is rejected, provided that the protection is rejected; return procedure is suspended until that rejection becomes final and pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 20/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 150 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(7) The link between the decision on (7) The link between the decision on ending of the legal stay of a third-country ending the legal stay of a third-country national and the issuing of a return decision national and the issuing of a return decision should be reinforced in order to reduce the should be reinforced. It is necessary to risk of absconding and the likelihood of ensure that a return decision is issued unauthorised secondary movements. It is immediately after the decision rejecting or necessary to ensure that a return decision is terminating the legal stay, or ideally in the issued immediately after the decision same act or decision. That requirement rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or should apply to cases where an application ideally in the same act or decision. That for international protection is rejected, requirement should in particular apply to provided that the return procedure is cases where an application for international suspended until that rejection becomes protection is rejected, provided that the final and pending the outcome of an appeal return procedure is suspended until that against that rejection. rejection becomes final and pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection.

Or. it

Amendment 151 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(7) The link between the decision on (7) In order to make the return policy ending of the legal stay of a third-country more coherent, clearer and easier to national and the issuing of a return decision comprehend, the link between the decision should be reinforced in order to reduce the on ending of the legal stay of a third- risk of absconding and the likelihood of country national and the issuing of a return unauthorised secondary movements. It is decision should be reinforced in order to necessary to ensure that a return decision is reduce the risk of absconding and the issued immediately after the decision likelihood of unauthorised secondary rejecting or terminating the legal stay, or movements. It is necessary to ensure that a ideally in the same act or decision. That return decision is issued immediately after

AM\1214327EN.docx 21/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN requirement should in particular apply to the decision rejecting or terminating the cases where an application for international legal stay, or ideally in the same act or protection is rejected, provided that the decision. That requirement should in return procedure is suspended until that particular apply to cases where an rejection becomes final and pending the application for international protection is outcome of an appeal against that rejected. rejection.

Or. fr

Amendment 152 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(8) The need for Union and bilateral deleted readmission agreements with third countries to facilitate the return process is underlined. International cooperation with countries of origin at all stages of the return process is a prerequisite to achieving sustainable return.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 153 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a directive Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(8) The need for Union and bilateral (8) The need for Union readmission readmission agreements with third agreements with third countries to facilitate countries to facilitate the return process is the return process is underlined. underlined. International cooperation with International cooperation with countries of

PE658.738v01-00 22/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN countries of origin at all stages of the origin at all stages of the return process is a return process is a prerequisite to achieving prerequisite to achieving sustainable return. sustainable return. This should be improved through constructive migration dialogues and the use of positive incentives, including financial, to improve the identification and readmission of returnees. Union formal readmission agreements negotiated by the Commission and coupled with Union parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight are crucial to achieve this.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled on Recital 47 on readmission agreements. To ensure common Union standards, democratic scrutiny and judicial review, return cooperation should always be based on formal Union readmission agreements.

Amendment 154 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(8) The need for Union and bilateral (8) The need for Union and bilateral readmission agreements with third readmission agreements with third countries to facilitate the return process is countries to facilitate the return process is underlined. International cooperation with underlined. International cooperation with countries of origin at all stages of the countries of origin at all stages of the return process is a prerequisite to achieving return process is a prerequisite to achieving sustainable return. sustainable return. Third countries that refuse to readmit their own nationals should bear the financial consequences of that decision.

Or. nl

Amendment 155 Maria Grapini

AM\1214327EN.docx 23/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Proposal for a directive Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(8) The need for Union and bilateral (8) The need for Union and bilateral readmission agreements with third readmission agreements with third countries to facilitate the return process is countries to facilitate the return process is underlined. International cooperation with underlined. International cooperation with countries of origin at all stages of the countries of origin at all stages of the return process is a prerequisite to achieving return process is a prerequisite to achieving sustainable return. a sustainable, safe return which ensures the protection of persons.

Or. ro

Amendment 156 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 8 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(8a) In the event of a lack of cooperation by certain third countries regarding readmission of their nationals who have been apprehended in irregular situations and failure by those third countries to cooperate effectively in the return process, some of the provisions of the Visa Code should, on the basis of objective criteria, be applied in a restrictive and temporary manner to enhance a given third country’s cooperation on readmission.

Or. fr

Amendment 157 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 9

PE658.738v01-00 24/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(9) It is recognised that it is legitimate (9) It is recognised that it is legitimate for Member States to return illegally for Member States to return illegally staying third-country nationals, provided staying third-country nationals, provided that fair and efficient asylum systems are in that fair and efficient asylum systems are in place which fully respect the principle of place which fully respect the principle of non-refoulement. non-refoulement. In the interests of fairness and efficiency, asylum systems should be limited to applications by nationals of (allegedly) unsafe countries.

Or. nl

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to recital 3, which stresses the need for a more effective returns policy.

Amendment 158 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(9) It is recognised that it is legitimate (9) It is recognised that it is imperative for Member States to return illegally that Member States have asylum systems staying third-country nationals, provided in place which fully respect international that fair and efficient asylum systems are human rights law and international in place which fully respect the principle of refugee law, the principle of non- non-refoulement. refoulement as well as migration policies that abide by applicable international standards on migration and the protection of migrant workers.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 159 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud,

AM\1214327EN.docx 25/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. fr

Justification

In order to achieve consistency with the amendments to Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph and Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1, the references to the principle of non-refoulement should be deleted.

Amendment 160 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(9) It is recognised that it is legitimate (9) It is recognised that it is legitimate for Member States to return illegally for Member States to return irregularly staying third-country nationals, provided staying third-country nationals, provided that fair and efficient asylum systems are in that fair and efficient asylum systems are in place which fully respect the principle of place which fully respect the principle of non-refoulement. non-refoulement.

Or. en

Justification

PE658.738v01-00 26/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 161 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(10) In accordance with Council (10) In accordance with Council Directive 2005/85/EC12 , a third-country Directive 2005/85/EC12 , a third-country national who has applied for asylum in a national who has applied for asylum in a Member State should not be regarded as Member State should not be regarded as staying illegally on the territory of that staying irregularly on the territory of that Member State until a negative decision on Member State until a negative decision on the application, or a decision ending his or the application, or a decision ending his or her right of stay as asylum seeker has her right of stay as asylum seeker has entered into force. entered into force. Victims of trafficking in human beings who are in the process of being granted a residence permit pursuant to Council Directive 2004/81/EC should not be regarded as staying irregularly on the territory of the Member State until a final decision on the issuance of the residence permit is taken by the competent authority. ______12 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 12 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13). 13.12.2005, p. 13).

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled to recital 4 which provides that the European return policy should be based on international law, including refugee protection, protection of the rights of the child, protection of stateless persons and human rights obligations, which includes protection of victims of trafficking of human beings.

Amendment 162 Pietro Bartolo

Proposal for a directive

AM\1214327EN.docx 27/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(10) In accordance with Council (10) In accordance with Council Directive 2005/85/EC 12, a third-country Directive 2005/85/EC12, a third-country national who has applied for asylum in a national who has applied for asylum in a Member State should not be regarded as Member State should not be regarded as staying illegally on the territory of that staying illegally on the territory of that Member State until a negative decision on Member State until a negative decision on the application, or a decision ending his or the application, or a final decision ending her right of stay as asylum seeker has their right of stay as asylum seeker has entered into force. entered into force, without prejudice to humanitarian or other reasons that prevent return. ______12 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 12 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13). 13.12.2005, p. 13).

Or. it

Justification

The right of residence must be lost when a final decision is issued and in any event it must remain possible for the State to issue, for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons, an autonomous residence permit or another authorisation granting the right of residence to a third-country national. The amendment is linked to the amendment submitted in relation to recital 19 in that it specifies that the right of residence shall end with a final decision and provides for suspension for other reasons.

Amendment 163 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 28/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN the application, or a decision ending his or the application, or a decision ending his or her right of stay as asylum seeker has her right of stay as asylum seeker has entered into force. entered into force. ______12 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 12 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13). 13.12.2005, p. 13).

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 164 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(11) To ensure clearer and more (11) To ensure clearer rules for effective rules for granting a period for voluntary departure, Union-wide voluntary departure and detaining a third- provisions aimed at providing the country national, determining whether opportunity for voluntary departure and there is or there is not a risk of avoiding recourse to detention should be absconding should be based on Union- established. Moreover this Directive wide objective criteria. Moreover this should oblige Member States to set out an Directive should set out specific criteria exhaustive list of specific and objective which establish a ground for a rebuttable criteria in their national law, in lines with presumption that a risk of absconding guidelines to be set up by the European exists. Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, that would guarantee that the return has been carried out voluntarily, including absence of any physical, psychological, or material pressure following an examination of the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned.

AM\1214327EN.docx 29/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Or. en

Justification

These changes are line with the changes proposed in recital 4.

Amendment 165 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(11) To ensure clearer and more (11) To ensure clearer and more effective rules for granting a period for effective rules for granting a period for voluntary departure and detaining a third- voluntary departure and detaining a third- country national, determining whether country national, determining whether there is or there is not a risk of absconding there is or there is not a risk of absconding should be based on Union-wide objective should be based on a non-exhaustive list criteria. Moreover this Directive should set of Union-wide objective criteria. Moreover out specific criteria which establish a this Directive should set out specific ground for a rebuttable presumption that a criteria which establish a ground for a risk of absconding exists. rebuttable presumption that a risk of absconding exists. Third-country nationals should be obliged to provide all the elements in their possession that are necessary in order to assess the risk of absconding.

Or. fr

Amendment 166 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(11) To ensure clearer and more (11) To ensure clearer and more effective rules for granting a period for effective rules for detaining a third-country voluntary departure and detaining a third- national, determining whether there is or country national, determining whether there is not a risk of absconding should be there is or there is not a risk of absconding based on Union-wide objective, exhaustive should be based on Union-wide objective

PE658.738v01-00 30/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN criteria. Moreover this Directive should set and limited list of criteria. out specific criteria which establish a ground for a rebuttable presumption that a risk of absconding exists.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur considers that a limited, precise and shared by all Member states list of criteria would harmonize the notion of the risk of absconding. This recital is linked to amendment on article 6.

Amendment 167 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(11) To ensure clearer and more (11) To ensure a more effective return effective rules for granting a period for policy, the Member States will take voluntary departure and detaining a third- sovereign decisions on a case-by-case country national, determining whether basis, determining whether there is or there there is or there is not a risk of absconding is not a risk of absconding based on should be based on Union-wide objective objective criteria. Since Member States’ criteria. Moreover this Directive should set social and economic situations can differ out specific criteria which establish a substantially, this Directive should be ground for a rebuttable presumption that limited to providing examples of criteria a risk of absconding exists. to allow the risk of absconding to be determined.

Or. nl

Amendment 168 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Dragoş Tudorache, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(11) To ensure clearer and more (11) To ensure clearer and more

AM\1214327EN.docx 31/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN effective rules for granting a period for effective rules for granting a period for voluntary departure and detaining a third- voluntary departure and detaining a third- country national, determining whether country national, determining whether there is or there is not a risk of absconding there is or there is not a risk of absconding should be based on Union-wide objective should be based on a closed, harmonized criteria. Moreover this Directive should set and exhaustive list of proven, Union-wide out specific criteria which establish a objective criteria defined by law. ground for a rebuttable presumption that a risk of absconding exists.

Or. en

Justification

There should always be, in coherence with the amendments made to Art. 6, an individual assessment. A presumption of a risk of absconding weakens the consideration of all relevant criteria to be looked at in an individual assessment. To ensure European harmonisation an exhaustive list of objective criteria should be included in the Directive.

Amendment 169 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(11) To ensure clearer and more (11) To ensure clearer and more effective rules for granting a period for effective rules for granting a period for voluntary departure and detaining a third- voluntary departure and detaining a third- country national, determining whether country national, determining whether there is or there is not a risk of absconding there is or there is not a risk of absconding should be based on Union-wide objective should be based solely on objective criteria criteria. Moreover this Directive should set laid down by this Directive and out specific criteria which establish a determined by a judicial or administrative ground for a rebuttable presumption that authority following consideration of the a risk of absconding exists. individual circumstances of the case.

Or. it

Amendment 170 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 11 a (new)

PE658.738v01-00 32/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(11a) Unless the Member States decide not to apply this Directive, pursuant to Article 2(2)(b), when determining the risk of absconding the relevant national authorities may take into consideration an infringement of the criminal law of Member States, including the rules on migration. Such authorities may also take into account the existence of an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution that has not yet led to a conviction, where provided by national law. 

Or. fr

Amendment 171 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(12) To reinforce the effectiveness of deleted 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. 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.

AM\1214327EN.docx 33/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur has modify the article 7 on cooperation. This recital is directly linked to these modifications.

Amendment 172 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the (12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear responsibilities for return procedure, clear responsibilities for third-country nationals should be third-country nationals should be established, and in particular the obligation established, and in particular the obligation to cooperate with the authorities at all to cooperate with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure, including by stages of the return procedure, including by providing the information and elements providing the information and elements that are necessary in order to assess their that are necessary in order to assess their individual situation. At the same time, it is individual situation. The determination of necessary to ensure that third-country their real age, through bone or dental nationals are informed of the consequences tests, is vital in order to verify the truth of of not complying with those obligations, in their statements on this subject, making it relation to the determination of the risk of possible to assess their good faith, and to absconding, the granting of a period for protect genuine unaccompanied minors voluntary departure and the possibility to by distinguishing between them and those impose detention, and to the access to making false claims. At the same time, it programmes providing logistical, financial is necessary to ensure that third-country and other material or in-kind assistance. 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.

Or. fr

Amendment 173

PE658.738v01-00 34/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the (12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear responsibilities for return procedure, clear responsibilities for third-country nationals should be third-country nationals should be established, and in particular the obligation established, and in particular the obligation to cooperate with the authorities at all to cooperate in good faith with the stages of the return procedure, including by authorities at all stages of the return providing the information and elements procedure, including by providing all the that are necessary in order to assess their information and all elements in their individual situation. At the same time, it is possession that are necessary in order to necessary to ensure that third-country assess their individual situation. At the nationals are informed of the consequences same time, it is necessary to ensure that of not complying with those obligations, in third-country nationals are informed of the relation to the determination of the risk of consequences of not complying with those absconding, the granting of a period for obligations, in relation to the determination voluntary departure and the possibility to of the risk of absconding, the granting of a impose detention, and to the access to period for voluntary departure and the programmes providing logistical, financial possibility to impose detention and and other material or in-kind assistance. penalties where provided for by national law, and to the access to programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.

Or. fr

Amendment 174 Maria Grapini

Proposal for a directive Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the (12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear responsibilities for return procedure in accordance with EU third-country nationals should be standards, clear responsibilities for third- established, and in particular the obligation country nationals should be established, to cooperate with the authorities at all and in particular the obligation to stages of the return procedure, including by cooperate with the authorities at all stages providing the information and elements of the return procedure, including by that are necessary in order to assess their providing the information and elements

AM\1214327EN.docx 35/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN individual situation. At the same time, it is that are necessary in order to assess their necessary to ensure that third-country individual situation. At the same time, it is nationals are informed of the consequences necessary to ensure that third-country of not complying with those obligations, in nationals are informed of the consequences relation to the determination of the risk of of not complying with those obligations, in absconding, the granting of a period for relation to the determination of the risk of voluntary departure and the possibility to absconding, the granting of a period for impose detention, and to the access to voluntary departure and the possibility to programmes providing logistical, financial impose detention, and to the access to and other material or in-kind assistance. programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.

Or. ro

Amendment 175 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(12) To reinforce the effectiveness of (12) It is necessary to ensure that third- the return procedure, clear country nationals are provided with all responsibilities for third-country nationals relevant information on the return should be established, and in particular procedure in a language they understand the obligation to cooperate with the so that they can engage with the return authorities at all stages of the return procedure. In particular, Member States procedure, including by providing the should have the obligation to provide information and elements that are timely and adequate information to third- necessary in order to assess their country nationals on the process of return individual situation. At the same time, it is including in relation to the different stages necessary to ensure that third-country of the return procedure, the granting of a nationals are informed of the period for voluntary departure, the consequences of not complying with those determination and consequences of obligations, in relation to the absconding, the possibility to impose determination of the risk of absconding, detention, available remedies, possible the granting of a period for voluntary application of entry-bans and access to departure and the possibility to impose programmes providing legal, logistical, detention, and to the access to programmes financial and other material or in-kind providing logistical, financial and other assistance. material or in-kind assistance.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 36/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

Timely and adequate information should be provided to the third country nationals if a Member State decided to implement a return policy. These changes are in line with the changes proposed in recital 4.

Amendment 176 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(13) Where there are no reasons to (13) In the interests of legal certainty, believe that the granting of a period for the equal treatment of all third-country voluntary departure would undermine the nationals awaiting repatriation and the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary efficiency of asylum systems, forced return return should be preferred over forced should be preferred over voluntary return. return and an appropriate period for In exceptional individual circumstances, a voluntary departure of up to thirty days, sovereign Member State may opt for a depending in particular on the prospect of period for voluntary departure. A period return, should be granted. A period for for voluntary departure should not be voluntary departure should not be granted granted where it has been assessed that where it has been assessed that third- third-country nationals pose a risk of country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

Or. nl

Justification

In the interests of legal certainty, equal treatment and the efficiency of asylum systems, forced return should become the default option.

Amendment 177 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

AM\1214327EN.docx 37/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Proposal for a directive Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(13) Where there are no reasons to (13) Voluntary return should always be believe that the granting of a period for preferred over forced return and an voluntary departure would undermine the appropriate period for voluntary departure purpose of a return procedure, voluntary of thirty days should be granted. Member return should be preferred over forced states should be able to decide to grant a return and an appropriate period for shorter period for voluntary departure of voluntary departure of up to thirty days, minimum 7 days and exceptionally not to depending in particular on the prospect of grant a period for voluntary departure return, should be granted. A period for where it has been assessed that third voluntary departure should not be granted country nationals pose a genuine and where it has been assessed that third- present risk to public policy, public country nationals pose a risk of security or national security. An extension absconding, have had a previous of the period for voluntary departure application for legal stay dismissed as should be provided for when considered fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or necessary because of the specific they pose a risk to public policy, public circumstances of an individual case. security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

Or. en

Justification

30 days seem to be an appropriate period to organize a voluntary departure. Nevertheless, in case of explicit expression of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of the Directive or non-compliance with a measure aiming at preventing the risk of absconding, or if the third national poses a genuine and present risk to public policy, national security or public security, this period could be shorten to 7 days; Member states may also not grant a period of voluntary departure. This amendment is linked to article 9.

Amendment 178 Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Hilde Vautmans

Proposal for a directive Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 38/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN (13) Where there are no reasons to (13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third- where it has been assessed that third- country nationals pose a risk of country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. An extension security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case. circumstances of an individual case and in the case of children, the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration in an extension decision.

Or. en

Amendment 179 Monika Hohlmeier, Lena Düpont

Proposal for a directive Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 39/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN absconding, have had a previous previous application for legal stay application for legal stay dismissed as dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or unfounded, or that they pose a risk to they pose a risk to public policy, public public policy, public security or national security or national security. An extension security in particular on grounds of of the period for voluntary departure terrorism or serious crime, are not be should be provided for when considered granted a period for voluntary departure. necessary because of the specific An extension of the period for voluntary circumstances of an individual case. departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

Or. en

Amendment 180 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a directive Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(13) Where there are no reasons to (13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, voluntary departure of thirty days should depending in particular on the prospect of be granted. Exceptionally, a period for return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure of no less than 15 days voluntary departure should not be granted could also be granted, after an individual where it has been assessed that third- assessment of the prospect of voluntary country nationals pose a risk of return. A period of less than 15 days can absconding, have had a previous only be granted where it has been application for legal stay dismissed as individually assessed, in line with the fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or exhaustive list of objective criteria as they pose a risk to public policy, public outlined in this Directive, that third- security or national security. An extension country nationals pose a risk of absconding of the period for voluntary departure or had a previous application for legal stay should be provided for when considered dismissed as fraudulent. An extension of necessary because of the specific the period for voluntary departure should circumstances of an individual case. be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an

PE658.738v01-00 40/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN individual case.

Or. en

Justification

In line with the amendments to Article 9, all options for voluntary departure should be strengthened, including by offering a 30 day period of voluntary return. Shorter periods are to be possible under certain conditions. The “public policy, public security or national security” ground for refusing a period for voluntary departure introduced by the Commission is not specific enough and can be properly dealt with under current criminal and administrative law. There appears to be no good reason not to also grant the possibility of voluntary departure to those whose requests are manifestly unfounded.

Amendment 181 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(13) Where there are no reasons to (13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to 30 days, voluntary departure of 30 days, depending depending in particular on the prospect of in particular on the prospect of return, return, should be granted. A period for should be granted. A period for voluntary voluntary departure should not be granted departure should not be granted where it where it has been assessed that third- has been assessed that third-country country nationals pose a risk of nationals pose a risk of absconding within absconding, have had a previous the meaning of this Directive or they pose application for legal stay dismissed as a risk to public policy, public security or fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or national security, duly evidenced either by they pose a risk to public policy, public a conviction or by elements that security or national security. An extension substantiate the assessment that they of the period for voluntary departure represent a danger to the public. An should be provided for when considered extension of the period for voluntary necessary because of the specific departure should be provided for when circumstances of an individual case. considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.

Or. it

AM\1214327EN.docx 41/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 182 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(13) Where there are no reasons to (13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted voluntary departure cannot be granted where it has been assessed that third- where it has been assessed that third- country nationals pose a risk of country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or fraudulent, manifestly unfounded or they pose a risk to public policy, public inadmissible, or they pose a risk to public security or national security. An extension policy, public security or national security. of the period for voluntary departure An extension of the period for voluntary should be provided for when considered departure should be provided for when necessary because of the specific considered necessary because of the circumstances of an individual case. specific circumstances of an individual case.

Or. fr

Amendment 183 Charlie Weimers, Emmanouil Fragkos

Proposal for a directive Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 42/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN return should be preferred over forced return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third- where it has been assessed that third- country nationals pose a risk of country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. An extension security or national security. An extension of the period for voluntary departure of the period for voluntary departure may should be provided for when considered be provided for when considered necessary necessary because of the specific because of the specific circumstances of an circumstances of an individual case. individual case.

Or. en

Amendment 184 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(13) Where there are no reasons to (13) If a Member State chooses to believe that the granting of a period for implement a return policy, voluntary return voluntary departure would undermine the should be preferred over forced return and purpose of a return procedure, voluntary a period for voluntary departure of six return should be preferred over forced months should be granted. Member States return and an appropriate period for should be able to decide not to grant a voluntary departure of up to thirty days, period for voluntary departure where it has depending in particular on the prospect of been assessed that third-country nationals return, should be granted. A period for pose a genuine, present and evidence- voluntary departure should not be granted based risk to public security or national where it has been assessed that third- security. An extension of the period for country nationals pose a risk of voluntary departure should be provided for absconding, have had a previous when considered necessary because of the application for legal stay dismissed as specific circumstances of an individual fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or case, including to children to finish their they pose a risk to public policy, public studies, to pregnant women to give birth security or national security. An extension to their children, to victims of trafficking of the period for voluntary departure waiting for justice while their case is should be provided for when considered pending and to ill persons with healthcare

AM\1214327EN.docx 43/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN necessary because of the specific needs. circumstances of an individual case.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 9 relating to voluntary departure.

Amendment 185 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(14) In order to promote voluntary deleted return, Member States should have operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, which may include support for reintegration in third countries of return, taking into account the common standards on Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programmes developed by the Commission in cooperation with Member States and endorsed by the Council.

Or. nl

Justification

Assistance in a third country is that country’s responsibility. Financial sanctions should be imposed on third countries that do not want to cooperate in readmitting and reintegrating their own citizens.

Amendment 186 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 14

PE658.738v01-00 44/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(14) In order to promote voluntary (14) In order to promote voluntary return, Member States should have departure , Member States may have operational programmes providing for operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, enhanced return assistance and counselling, which may include support for which may include support for reintegration in third countries of return, reintegration in third countries of return. taking into account the common standards The common standards on Assisted on Assisted Voluntary Return and Voluntary Return and Reintegration Reintegration Programmes developed by Programmes developed by the Commission the Commission in cooperation with in cooperation with Member States and Member States and endorsed by the endorsed by the Council could be taken Council. into account. Voluntary return assistance should be granted in accordance with national regulations, which may make such assistance subject to conditions and may set out grounds for refusing it.  This Directive does not establish a universal or absolute right for third- country nationals to receive assistance for voluntary departure or reintegration. 

Or. fr

Amendment 187 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(14) In order to promote voluntary (14) In order to promote voluntary return, Member States should have return, Member States should have operational programmes providing for operational programmes providing for case enhanced return assistance and counselling, management, enhanced return assistance which may include support for and counselling, which should include reintegration in third countries of return, support for reintegration in third countries taking into account the common standards of return, taking into account the common on Assisted Voluntary Return and standards on Assisted Voluntary Return Reintegration Programmes developed by and Reintegration Programmes developed the Commission in cooperation with by the Commission in cooperation with Member States and endorsed by the Member States and endorsed by the Council. Council. Voluntary return, assisted

AM\1214327EN.docx 45/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN voluntary return and reintegration programmes are essential pillars of a Union migration policy and allow migrants to return in a humane, dignified and rights-based manner. Voluntary return should be allowed at all stages of the procedure.

Or. en

Amendment 188 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Olivier Chastel, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Dragoş Tudorache, Michal Šimečka

Proposal for a directive Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(14) In order to promote voluntary (14) In order to promote voluntary return, Member States should have return, Member States should have operational programmes providing for operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, enhanced return assistance and counselling, which may include support for which should include support for reintegration in third countries of return, reintegration in third countries of return taking into account the common standards tailored to the individual circumstances on Assisted Voluntary Return and and prospects of the returnee, with Reintegration Programmes developed by particular attention for unaccompanied the Commission in cooperation with minors, taking into account the common Member States and endorsed by the standards on Assisted Voluntary Return Council. and Reintegration Programmes developed by the Commission in cooperation with Member States and endorsed by the Council.

Or. en

Amendment 189 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 46/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN (14) In order to promote voluntary (14) In order to promote voluntary return, Member States should have return, Member States should have operational programmes providing for operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, enhanced return assistance and counselling, which may include support for which should include support for reintegration in third countries of return, reintegration in third countries of return, taking into account the common standards taking into account the common standards on Assisted Voluntary Return and on Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programmes developed by Reintegration Programmes developed by the Commission in cooperation with the Commission in cooperation with Member States and endorsed by the Member States and endorsed by the Council. Council.

Or. en

Justification

Reintegration is a key factor of an effective and sustainable return. This amendment is linked to Article 14.

Amendment 190 Charlie Weimers, Emmanouil Fragkos

Proposal for a directive Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(14) In order to promote voluntary (14) In order to promote voluntary return, Member States should have return, Member States may have operational programmes providing for operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, enhanced return assistance and counselling, which may include support for which may include support for reintegration in third countries of return, reintegration in third countries of return, taking into account the common standards taking into account the common standards on Assisted Voluntary Return and on Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programmes developed by Reintegration Programmes developed by the Commission in cooperation with the Commission in cooperation with Member States and endorsed by the Member States and endorsed by the Council. Council.

Or. en

Amendment 191 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

AM\1214327EN.docx 47/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Proposal for a directive Recital 14 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(14a) In accordance with Directive 2009/52/EC, Member States should ensure that there are effective mechanisms through which third-country nationals can lodge complaints against their employers. In accordance with Directive 2012/29/EU, Member States should ensure that all victims of crime receive appropriate information, support and protection and are able to participate in criminal proceedings. To this end, adequate mechanisms ensuring portable justice and access to redress mechanisms should be established as part of the national programmes on return and should ensure access to justice for issues relating to violations of Directive 2009/52/EC or Directive 2012/29/EU throughout the return procedure, including measures to ensure access to justice after return to a third country.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 14.

Amendment 192 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 14 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(14a) Member States shall ensure that third-country nationals receive information on the return procedure in a language that they understand. In the case of vulnerable persons, in particular

PE658.738v01-00 48/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN unaccompanied minors, this information shall be supplied in a manner that is appropriate to the unaccompanied minor’s age and ability to understand, including by using multimedia formats.

Or. it

Amendment 193 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(15) A common minimum set of legal deleted safeguards on decisions related to return should be established to guarantee effective protection of the interests of the individuals concerned.

Or. nl

Justification

Sovereign Member States observe the rule of law and international treaties, while taking their own social and economic circumstances into account. The EU should not intervene in this area. This amendment is closely linked to recital 4 on Member State sovereignty.

Amendment 194 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 15 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(15a) Member States should ensure that a vulnerability assessment is carried out for persons facing return procedures. Factors increasing the risk of vulnerability may include, among others: individual factors such as age, sex, gender, status in society, beliefs and

AM\1214327EN.docx 49/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN attitudes, emotional, psychological and cognitive characteristics, physical and mental well-being, household and family factors, community factors, structural factors or situational factors.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 38 and Article 14.

Amendment 195 Monika Hohlmeier, Lena Düpont

Proposal for a directive Recital 15 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(15a) Member States should ensure that persons facing return procedures do not intentionally and fraudulently exploit factors that might be considered as potentially increasing their vulnerability

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is necessary for reasons relating to the internal logic of the text as intended by the Commission in Article 14 with the effective functioning and setting up of national return management systems.

Amendment 196 Pietro Bartolo

Proposal for a directive Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 50/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN effective remedy, while taking into effective remedy, which should not in any account that long deadlines can have a event be less than 30 days. detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding five 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.

Or. it

Justification

The term ‘enough time’, without a maximum number of days, could lead to differing practices, harmful to individuals’ rights, in various Member States. This amendment is linked to Article 16.

Amendment 197 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 51/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Justification

The maximum time limit of five days to lodge an appeal in case the return decision is the consequence of a decision rejecting an asylum application should be deleted. Such short time limit undermines the effectiveness of the appeal in practice.

Amendment 198 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is related to Article 16. It's necessary to provide third country nationals with a sufficient time to lodge an appeal. The shadow rapporteur is furthermore against having different rules for asylum seekers whom claim has been rejected and irregular migrants.

Amendment 199 Nadine Morano (PPE)

Proposal for a directive Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal (16) The deadline for lodging an appeal

PE658.738v01-00 52/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN against decisions related to return should against decisions related to return must provide enough time to ensure access to an ensure access to an effective remedy, while effective remedy, while taking into account taking into account that long deadlines can that long deadlines can have a detrimental have a detrimental effect on return effect on return procedures. To avoid procedures. To avoid possible misuse of possible misuse of rights and procedures, a rights and procedures, a maximum period maximum period not exceeding five days not exceeding two days should be granted should be granted to appeal against a return to appeal to a court or tribunal against a decision. This provision should only apply return decision. following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review.

Or. fr

Amendment 200 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal (16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding five days maximum period not exceeding five days should be granted to appeal against a return should be granted to appeal against a return decision. This provision should only apply decision. following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review.

Or. nl

Justification

The original text stacks one appeal on top of the next, creating a judicial carousel. A decision on removal implies the refusal of a request for international protection. These decisions should be taken as one, with a single right of appeal

AM\1214327EN.docx 53/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 201 Maria Grapini

Proposal for a directive Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal (16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid effect on return procedures, and the appeal possible misuse of rights and procedures, a procedure should be notified to third- maximum period not exceeding five days country nationals within the deadline for should be granted to appeal against a return lodging an appeal. To avoid possible decision. This provision should only apply misuse of rights and procedures, a following a decision rejecting an maximum period not exceeding five days application for international protection should be granted to appeal against a return which became final, including after a decision. This provision should only apply possible judicial review. following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review.

Or. ro

Amendment 202 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal (16) The deadline for lodging a judicial against decisions related to return should appeal against decisions related to return provide enough time to ensure access to an should provide enough time to ensure effective remedy, while taking into access to an effective remedy. A limit of 30 account that long deadlines can have a days should be granted from notification detrimental effect on return procedures. To of the return decision in which to appeal avoid possible misuse of rights and against the decision. To avoid possible procedures, a maximum period not misuse of rights and procedures, a exceeding five days should be granted to maximum period not exceeding 15 days

PE658.738v01-00 54/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN appeal against a return decision. This should be granted to appeal against a return provision should only apply following a decision following a decision rejecting an decision rejecting an application for application for international protection international protection which became which became final. final, including after a possible judicial review.

Or. it

Amendment 203 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a directive Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal (16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding five days maximum period between ten and fifteen should be granted to appeal against a return days should be granted to appeal against a decision. This provision should only apply return decision. This provision should only following a decision rejecting an apply following a decision rejecting an application for international protection application for international protection which became final, including after a which became final, including after a possible judicial review. possible judicial review.

Or. en

Justification

The short period of five days provided for in the Commission proposal is too short to make effective use of the right to an appeal. A period of between 10 and 15 days is the minimum needed to enable individuals to make an informed decision about whether or not to lodge an appeal.

Amendment 204 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

AM\1214327EN.docx 55/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Proposal for a directive Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal (16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding five days maximum period not exceeding three days should be granted to appeal against a return should be granted to appeal against a return decision. This provision should only apply decision. This provision should only apply following a decision rejecting an following a decision rejecting an application for international protection application for international protection which became final, including after a which became final, including after a possible judicial review. possible judicial review.

Or. fr

Amendment 205 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(17) The appeal against a return deleted decision that is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection which was already subject to an effective judicial remedy should take place before a single level of jurisdiction only, since the third-county national concerned would have already had his or her individual situation examined and decided upon by a judicial authority in the context of the asylum procedure.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 56/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 206 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur considers that it's not the aim of this recast to modify the organisation of the jurisdictions in the member states and to have different rules for asylum seekers whom claim has been rejected and irregular migrants. This amendment is related to Article 16.

Amendment 207 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 57/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Or. nl

Justification

Return decisions are the logical outcome of a decision rejecting an application for international protection and should thus be an integral part of the same administrative act. A right to a second appeal is, therefore, superfluous.

Amendment 208 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Michal Šimečka

Proposal for a directive Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(17) The appeal against a return decision (17) The appeal against a return decision that is based on a decision rejecting an that is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection application for international protection which was already subject to an effective which was already subject to an effective judicial remedy should take place before a judicial remedy could take place before a single level of jurisdiction only, since the single level of jurisdiction only, only when third-county national concerned would the third-county national concerned would have already had his or her individual have already had his or her individual situation examined and decided upon by a situation examined and decided upon by a judicial authority in the context of the judicial authority in the context of the asylum procedure. asylum procedure, including an individual assessment of the full scope of the principle of non-refoulement under European and international law.

Or. en

Justification

Obliging Member States to limit this to a single level of jurisdiction would effectively prevent Member States from affording additional judicial review, should they wish to do so. It thereby unnecessarily restricts the possibilities of Member States. Not all Member States fully assess the aspect of refoulement under the return acquis during the asylum procedure, or in taking the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay. That should thus be a precondition for allowing only a single level of jurisdiction.

Amendment 209 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

PE658.738v01-00 58/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Proposal for a directive Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(17) The appeal against a return (17) To facilitate the operation of the decision that is based on a decision courts and tribunals and to prevent rejecting an application for international delaying tactics designed to obstruct protection that was already subject to an returns, Member States should ensure effective judicial remedy should take place that appeals against return decisions are before a single level of jurisdiction only, limited, as far as possible, to a single level since the third-county national concerned of jurisdiction only, while guaranteeing would have already had his or her the right to an effective remedy. individual situation examined and decided upon by a judicial authority in the context of the asylum procedure.

Or. fr

Amendment 210 Nicolas Bay, Jean-Paul Garraud

Proposal for a directive Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(17) The appeal against a return decision (17) (Does not affect English version.) that is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection which was already subject to an effective judicial remedy should take place before a single level of jurisdiction only, since the third-county national concerned would have already had his or her individual situation examined and decided upon by a judicial authority in the context of the asylum procedure.

Or. fr

Justification

Does not affect English version.

AM\1214327EN.docx 59/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 211 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 17 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(17a) Member States shall have the option to keep administrative review proceedings prior to an appeal before a court or tribunal, provided that the administrative review does not affect the effectiveness of the return procedure.

Or. fr

Amendment 212 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 17 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(17b) A body that carries out a judicial function should be categorised as a court or tribunal if it has been established by law, is permanent, independent and impartial, and has an inter partes procedure, if its jurisdiction is compulsory, if it applies the rule of law, and if it offers the requisite procedural guarantees.

Or. fr

Amendment 213 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Recital 18

PE658.738v01-00 60/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(18) An appeal against a return deleted decision should have an automatic suspensive effect only in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement.

Or. fr

Justification

Amendment 214 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(18) An appeal against a return decision (18) The effect of a return decision should have an automatic suspensive effect should be automatically suspended during only in cases where there is a risk of the period for lodging the appeal against breach of the principle of non- such decision at first instance and, where refoulement. that appeal has been lodged within the set period, during the examination of the appeal and until the decision on the appeal has been notified to the applicant, in particular where there is a risk of breach of the principle on non- refoulement. An appeal against a return decision should have an automatic suspensive effect including when there are cases pending before a criminal court, in order to ensure access to justice for both victims and suspects.

Or. en

Amendment 215 Tom Vandendriessche

AM\1214327EN.docx 61/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Proposal for a directive Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(18) An appeal against a return decision (18) An appeal against a return decision should have an automatic suspensive effect should have an automatic suspensive effect only in cases where there is a risk of breach only in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement. of the principle of non-refoulement. An appeal against a return decision is only admissible if the appellant has voluntarily entered secure detention pending the outcome of the appeal.

Or. nl

Justification

Secure detention during the appeals process prevents appeals from being lodged purely to prolong the asylum process and/or abscond.

Amendment 216 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Michal Šimečka

Proposal for a directive Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(18) An appeal against a return decision (18) An appeal against a return decision should have an automatic suspensive effect should always have an automatic only in cases where there is a risk of suspensive effect except where judicial breach of the principle of non-refoulement. authorities have fully assessed the principle of non-refoulement and have found that this principle does not risk to be breached.

Or. en

Justification

Given the irreversibility of the fundamental rights violations during and after return, appeals should always have a suspensive effect. Otherwise there is no real effective remedy. In addition, the logic in the Commission proposal would unnecessarily burden the Member States' authorities as the need for a suspensive effect would have to be assessed individually

PE658.738v01-00 62/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN and separately.

Amendment 217 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(18) An appeal against a return decision (18) An appeal against a return decision should have an automatic suspensive effect shall always have an automatic suspensive only in cases where there is a risk of effect. breach of the principle of non- refoulement.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is related to Article 16. The suspensive effect is the sole guarantee to have access to an effective remedy.

Amendment 218 Nadine Morano (PPE)

Proposal for a directive Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(18) An appeal against a return decision (18) An appeal against a return decision should have an automatic suspensive effect should not have an automatic suspensive only in cases where there is a risk of effect. breach of the principle of non- refoulement.

Or. fr

Amendment 219 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 19

AM\1214327EN.docx 63/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(19) In cases where the principle of (19) Member States should, however, non-refoulement is not at stake, appeals have the option to temporarily suspend a against a return decision should not have return decision where deemed necessary. 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.

Or. fr

Amendment 220 Charlie Weimers, Emmanouil Fragkos

Proposal for a directive Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(19) In cases where the principle of non- (19) In cases where the principle of non- refoulement is not at stake, appeals against refoulement is not at stake, appeals against a return decision should not have an a return decision should not have an automatic suspensive effect. The judicial automatic suspensive effect. 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.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 64/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 221 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(19) In cases where the principle of (19) The judicial authorities should be non-refoulement is not at stake, appeals able to suspend the enforcement of a return against a return decision should not have decision in individual cases for other an automatic suspensive effect. The reasons, either upon request of the third- judicial authorities should be able to country national concerned or acting ex temporarily suspend the enforcement of a officio, where deemed necessary. Such return decision in individual cases for other decisions should be taken without undue reasons, either upon request of the third- delay. 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.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is linked to Article 16. The shadow rapporteur wants to keep the wording of the previous directive.

Amendment 222 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 65/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN reasons, either upon request of the third- Such decisions should be taken without country national concerned or acting ex undue delay. 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.

Or. en

Amendment 223 Pietro Bartolo

Proposal for a directive Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(19) In cases where the principle of (19) In cases of a subsequent return non-refoulement is not at stake, appeals decision, for instance following the final against a return decision should not have rejection of a subsequent application for an automatic suspensive effect. The international protection, the judicial judicial authorities should be able to authorities should be able to suspend the temporarily suspend the enforcement of a enforcement of a return decision in return decision in individual cases for other individual cases for other reasons, either reasons, either upon request of the third- upon request of the third-country national country national concerned or acting ex concerned or acting ex officio, where officio, where deemed necessary. Such deemed necessary. Such decisions should decisions should, as a rule, be taken be taken without undue delay. within 48 hours. Where justified by the complexity of the case, judicial authorities should take such decision without undue delay.

Or. it

Justification

The right of suspension should also be guaranteed following subsequent return decisions. This amendment is linked to Article 16.

Amendment 224 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Anna Júlia Donáth, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Michal Šimečka

PE658.738v01-00 66/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Proposal for a directive Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(19) In cases where the principle of non- (19) In cases where judicial authorities refoulement is not at stake, appeals against have fully assessed the principle of non- a return decision should not have an refoulement and have found that this automatic suspensive effect. The judicial principle does not risk to be breached, authorities should be able to temporarily appeals against a return decision should not suspend the enforcement of a return have an automatic suspensive effect. The decision in individual cases for other judicial authorities should be able to reasons, either upon request of the third- temporarily suspend the enforcement of a country national concerned or acting ex return decision in individual cases for other officio, where deemed necessary. Such reasons, either upon request of the third- decisions should, as a rule, be taken within country national concerned or acting ex 48 hours. Where justified by the officio, where deemed necessary. Such complexity of the case, judicial authorities decisions should, as a rule, be taken within should take such decision without undue 48 hours. Where justified by the delay. complexity of the case, judicial authorities should take such decision without undue delay.

Or. en

Justification

Given the irreversibility of the fundamental rights challenges during and after return, appeals should have suspensive effect unless its clearly established that the absolute prohibition of refoulement is not at stake. Judicial authorities should be given independence in determining when it is necessary to suspend the enforcement of a return decision.

Amendment 225 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(19) In cases where the principle of (19) Appeals against a return decision non-refoulement is not at stake, appeals should not have an automatic suspensive against a return decision should not have effect. The judicial authorities should be an automatic suspensive effect. The able to temporarily suspend the judicial authorities should be able to enforcement of a return decision in

AM\1214327EN.docx 67/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN temporarily suspend the enforcement of a individual cases for other reasons, either return decision in individual cases for other upon request of the third-country national reasons, either upon request of the third- concerned or acting ex officio, where country national concerned or acting ex deemed necessary. Such decisions should, officio, where deemed necessary. Such as a rule, be taken within 48 hours. Where decisions should, as a rule, be taken within justified by the complexity of the case, 48 hours. Where justified by the judicial authorities should take such complexity of the case, judicial authorities decision without undue delay. should take such decision without undue delay.

Or. fr

Justification

Amendment 226 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 19 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(19a) National application of the rules on the provisions of this Directive related to appeals and suspensive effect should comply with the right to an effective remedy as provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Or. fr

Amendment 227 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(20) To improve the effectiveness of deleted

PE658.738v01-00 68/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN 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.

Or. en

Amendment 228 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(20) To improve the effectiveness of deleted 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.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 69/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Justification

This amendment is linked to Article 16. The assessment of the risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement is not always done. Moreover, the asylum procedure is not linked to the return procedure. It's necessary to have two different procedures and to protect safeguards in both.

Amendment 229 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(20) To improve the effectiveness of (20) To improve the effectiveness of return procedures and avoid unnecessary return procedures and avoid unnecessary delays, without negatively affecting the delays, without negatively affecting the rights of the third-country nationals rights of the third-country nationals concerned, the enforcement of the return concerned, the enforcement of the return decision should not be automatically decision should not be automatically suspended in cases where the assessment suspended in cases where the assessment of the risk to breach the principle of non- of the risk to breach the principle of non- refoulement already took place and judicial refoulement already took place or judicial remedy was effectively exercised as part remedy was effectively exercised. 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.

Or. nl

Justification

The assessment of a risk of breaching the principle of non-refoulement is considered throughout the asylum process. If a judicial remedy is exercised, that risk has already been assessed.

Amendment 230 Nadine Morano (PPE)

Proposal for a directive Recital 20

PE658.738v01-00 70/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(20) To improve the effectiveness of (20) To improve the effectiveness of return procedures and avoid unnecessary return procedures and avoid unnecessary delays, without negatively affecting the delays, without negatively affecting the rights of the third-country nationals rights of the third-country nationals concerned, the enforcement of the return concerned, the enforcement of the return decision should not be automatically decision should not be automatically suspended in cases where the assessment suspended in cases where the assessment of the risk to breach the principle of non- of the risk to breach the principle of non- refoulement already took place and judicial refoulement already took place and judicial remedy was effectively exercised as part of remedy was effectively exercised as part of the asylum procedure carried out prior to the asylum procedure carried out prior to the issuing of the related return decision the issuing of the related return decision against which the appeal is lodged, unless against which the appeal is lodged. the situation of the third-country national concerned would have significantly changed since.

Or. fr

Amendment 231 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(20) To improve the effectiveness of (20) To improve the effectiveness of return procedures and avoid unnecessary return procedures and avoid unnecessary delays, without negatively affecting the delays, without negatively affecting the rights of the third-country nationals rights of the third-country nationals concerned, the enforcement of the return concerned, the enforcement of the return decision should not be automatically decision should not be automatically suspended in cases where the assessment suspended in cases where the judicial of the risk to breach the principle of non- remedy was effectively exercised as part of refoulement already took place and the asylum procedure carried out prior to judicial remedy was effectively exercised the issuing of the related return decision as part of the asylum procedure carried out against which the appeal is lodged, unless prior to the issuing of the related return the situation of the third-country national decision against which the appeal is concerned would have significantly lodged, unless the situation of the third- changed since. country national concerned would have significantly changed since.

AM\1214327EN.docx 71/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Or. fr

Justification

Amendment 232 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Michal Šimečka

Proposal for a directive Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(20) To improve the effectiveness of (20) To improve the effectiveness of return procedures and avoid unnecessary return procedures and avoid unnecessary delays, without negatively affecting the delays, without negatively affecting the rights of the third-country nationals rights of the third-country nationals concerned, the enforcement of the return concerned, the enforcement of the return decision should not be automatically decision should not be automatically suspended in cases where the assessment suspended in cases where the full of the risk to breach the principle of non- assessment of the risk to breach the refoulement already took place and judicial principle of non-refoulement under remedy was effectively exercised as part of European and international law already the asylum procedure carried out prior to took place and judicial remedy was the issuing of the related return decision effectively exercised as part of the asylum against which the appeal is lodged, unless procedure carried out prior to the issuing of the situation of the third-country national the related return decision against which concerned would have significantly the appeal is lodged, unless the situation of changed since. the third-country national concerned would have changed since.

Or. en

Justification

Only if the full scope of the prohibition of refoulement has been found can the enforcement of the return decision be suspended. The introduction of the requirement of ‘significant change' places too high of a burden on the judicial authorities and risks that individual cases are not properly assessed, thereby producing potential irreversible violations of non-refoulement.

Amendment 233 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

PE658.738v01-00 72/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Proposal for a directive Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(21) The necessary legal aid should be (21) The necessary legal aid should be made available , upon request, to those made available, free of charge, to those who lack sufficient resources. National who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish a list of legislation should establish legal aid. instances where legal aid is to be considered necessary.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is related to article 7. It is one of the most important component of access to information and rights for third country nationals.

Amendment 234 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(21) The necessary legal aid should be (21) The necessary legal aid should be made available, upon request, to those who made available, upon express request, to lack sufficient resources. National those who lack sufficient resources. legislation should establish a list of National legislation should establish a list instances where legal aid is to be of instances where legal aid is to be considered necessary. considered necessary.

Or. fr

Amendment 235 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(21) The necessary legal aid should be (21) The necessary legal aid should be

AM\1214327EN.docx 73/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN made available, upon request, to those who made available free of charge, upon lack sufficient resources. National request, to those who lack sufficient legislation should establish a list of resources. National legislation should instances where legal aid is to be establish a list of instances where legal aid considered necessary. is to be considered necessary.

Or. it

Amendment 236 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(21) The necessary legal aid should be (21) Legal aid should be made available, made available , upon request, to those free of charge, to those who lack sufficient who lack sufficient resources. National resources. National legislation should legislation should establish a list of establish the modalities in order to access instances where legal aid is to be legal aid. considered necessary.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 40 relating to measures needed in order to ensure the effective implementation of the directive and to Article 7 providing for third-country nationals' right to be informed during return procedures and Article 14 relating to return management.

Amendment 237 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(22) The situation of third-country (22) Third-country nationals who are nationals who are staying illegally but who staying illegally but who cannot yet be cannot yet be removed should be removed should be kept in secure addressed. Their basic conditions of detention awaiting repatriation, so that subsistence should be defined according to their basic conditions of subsistence can be

PE658.738v01-00 74/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN national legislation. In order to be able to met, and the asylum system can be run demonstrate their specific situation in the fairly and efficiently. event of administrative controls or checks, such persons should be provided with written confirmation of their situation. Member States should enjoy wide discretion concerning the form and format of the written confirmation and should also be able to include it in decisions related to return adopted under this Directive.

Or. nl

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to recital 18, which states that applicants awaiting the outcome of their appeals must be securely detained.

Amendment 238 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(22) The situation of third-country (22) The situation of third-country nationals who are staying illegally but who nationals who are staying irregularly cannot yet be removed should be should be addressed in any event. Their addressed. Their basic conditions of adequate and dignified conditions of subsistence should be defined according to subsistence should be defined according to national legislation. In order to be able to national legislation while Member States demonstrate their specific situation in the should look into the possibility to event of administrative controls or checks, regularise them based on their existing such persons should be provided with ties to the Member State. In order to be written confirmation of their situation. able to demonstrate their specific situation Member States should enjoy wide in the event of administrative controls or discretion concerning the form and format checks, such persons should be provided of the written confirmation and should also with written confirmation of their situation. be able to include it in decisions related to Member States should enjoy wide return adopted under this Directive. discretion concerning the form and format of the written confirmation and should also be able to include it in decisions related to return adopted under this Directive.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 75/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 239 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(22) The situation of third-country (22) The situation of third-country nationals who are staying illegally but who nationals who are staying irregularly but cannot yet be removed should be who cannot yet be removed should be addressed. Their basic conditions of addressed. Their basic conditions of subsistence should be defined according to subsistence should be defined according to national legislation. In order to be able to national legislation. In order to be able to demonstrate their specific situation in the demonstrate their specific situation in the event of administrative controls or checks, event of administrative controls or checks, such persons should be provided with such persons should be provided with written confirmation of their situation. written confirmation of their situation. Member States should enjoy wide Member States should enjoy wide discretion concerning the form and format discretion concerning the form and format of the written confirmation and should also of the written confirmation and should also be able to include it in decisions related to be able to include it in decisions related to return adopted under this Directive. return adopted under this Directive.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 240 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(23) The use of coercive measures (23) The use of coercive measures

PE658.738v01-00 76/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN should be expressly subject to the should be banned. If Member States adopt principles of proportionality and such measures, they should be expressly effectiveness with regard to the means subject to the principles of proportionality used and objectives pursued. Minimum and necessity. safeguards for the conduct of forced return should be established, taking into account Council Decision 2004/573/EC13 . Member States should be able to rely on various possibilities to monitor forced return. ______13 Council Decision 2004/573/EC of 29 April 2004 on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of two or more Member States, of third- country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 28).

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments to recital 4.

Amendment 241 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(24) The effects of national return deleted measures should be given a European dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all the Member States. The length of the entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case and should not normally exceed five years. In this context, particular account should be taken of the fact that the third-country national concerned has already been the subject of more than one return decision

AM\1214327EN.docx 77/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN or removal order or has entered the territory of a Member State during an entry ban.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments to recital 4.

Amendment 242 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(24) The effects of national return (24) The effects of national return measures should be given a European measures should be given a European dimension by establishing an entry ban dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all the Member States. The territory of all the Member States. The length of the entry ban should be length of the entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case and circumstances of an individual case, with a should not normally exceed five years. In minimum duration of 20 years. In this this context, particular account should be context, particular account should be taken taken of the fact that the third-country of aggravating circumstances, i.e. that the national concerned has already been the third-country national concerned has subject of more than one return decision or already been the subject of more than one removal order or has entered the territory return decision or removal order or has of a Member State during an entry ban. entered the territory of a Member State during an entry ban.

Or. nl

Justification

This amendment is linked to recital 14 on the reintegration of third-country nationals. Preventing second or third attempts in close succession to the first aids reintegration.

Amendment 243 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

PE658.738v01-00 78/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Proposal for a directive Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(24) The effects of national return (24) The effects of national return measures should be given a European measures should be given a European dimension by establishing an entry ban dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all the Member States. The territory of all the Member States. The length of the entry ban should be length of the entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case and circumstances of an individual case and should not normally exceed five years. In should not normally exceed 10 years. In this context, particular account should be this context, particular account should be taken of the fact that the third-country taken of the fact that the third-country national concerned has already been the national concerned has already been the subject of more than one return decision or subject of more than one return decision or removal order or has entered the territory removal order or has entered the territory of a Member State during an entry ban. of a Member State during an entry ban.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment follows from Amendment 1, designed to put in place a more balanced European migration policy.

Amendment 244 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(25) When an illegally staying third- deleted country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it may be appropriate 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, an entry ban may be imposed by the competent authority without issuing a

AM\1214327EN.docx 79/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN return decision in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third- country national concerned.

Or. en

Justification

The shadow rapporteur doesn't see the relevance of this amendment. Punish people who are voluntary leaving the EU seems counterproductive. This is linked to the amendment on article 13.

Amendment 245 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Such a potential entry ban at exit could undermine the willingness of irregularly staying third country nationals to leave voluntarily. They could actually be less willing to depart if they know there is a risk of an entry ban, with all its consequences.

Amendment 246 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

PE658.738v01-00 80/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Proposal for a directive Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(25) When an illegally staying third- (25) Entry bans should never be country national is detected during exit imposed for the sole reasons of the checks at the external borders, it may be irregular stay of the person. appropriate 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, an entry ban may be imposed by the competent authority without issuing a return decision in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third- country national concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 247 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod, Annalisa Tardino

Proposal for a directive Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(25) When an illegally staying third- (25) When an illegally staying third- country national is detected during exit country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it may be checks at the external borders, it is appropriate to impose an entry ban in necessary to impose an entry ban in order order to prevent future re-entry and to prevent future re-entry and therefore to therefore to reduce the risks of illegal reduce the risks of illegal immigration. An immigration. When justified, following an entry ban shall be imposed by the individual assessment and in application competent authority without issuing a of the principle of proportionality, an return decision in order to avoid entry ban may be imposed by the postponing the departure of the third- competent authority without issuing a country national concerned. return decision in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third- country national concerned.

AM\1214327EN.docx 81/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Or. fr

Amendment 248 Nadine Morano (PPE)

Proposal for a directive Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(25) When an illegally staying third- (25) When an illegally staying third- country national is detected during exit country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it may be checks at the external borders, it may be appropriate to impose an entry ban in order appropriate to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration. reduce the risks of illegal immigration. When justified, following an individual When justified, an entry ban may be assessment and in application of the imposed by the competent authority principle of proportionality, an entry ban without issuing a return decision in order to may be imposed by the competent avoid postponing the departure of the third- authority without issuing a return decision country national concerned. in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third-country national concerned.

Or. fr

Amendment 249 Milan Uhrík

Proposal for a directive Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(25) When an illegally staying third- (25) When an illegally staying third- country national is detected during exit country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it may be checks at the external borders, an entry ban appropriate to impose an entry ban in will be imposed on them in order to order to prevent future re-entry and prevent future re-entry and therefore to therefore to reduce the risks of illegal reduce the risks of illegal immigration. immigration. When justified, following an When justified, following an individual individual assessment and in application of assessment and in application of the the principle of proportionality, an entry principle of proportionality, an entry ban ban may be imposed by the competent may be imposed by the competent authority without issuing a return decision authority without issuing a return decision

PE658.738v01-00 82/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN in order to avoid postponing the departure in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third-country national concerned. of the third-country national concerned.

Or. sk

Amendment 250 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(27) The use of detention for the (27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be subject to the purpose of removal should be considered a principle of proportionality with regard to measure of last resort and subject to the the means used and objectives pursued. principle of proportionality with regard to Detention is justified only to prepare the the means used and objectives pursued. return or carry out the removal process and Preference should be given to alternatives if the application of less coercive measures to detention. The detention of would not be sufficient. unaccompanied minors or families with minors should never be possible. Detention is justified only to prepare the return or carry out the removal process and if the application of less coercive measures would not be sufficient.

Or. it

Justification

This amendment is needed because it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28, 29 and 30 and to Articles 18, 19 and 20 of this Directive.

Amendment 251 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod, Annalisa Tardino

Proposal for a directive Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(27) The use of detention for the (27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be subject to the purpose of removal should be subject to the

AM\1214327EN.docx 83/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN principle of proportionality with regard to principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued. the means used and objectives pursued. Detention is justified only to prepare the However, in view of the illegal situation of return or carry out the removal process the individuals concerned by return, and if the application of less coercive detention must always remain an measures would not be sufficient. instrument available to Member States.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment is necessary to ensure consistency with the amendments to Article 18 – paragraph 5 and Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2.

Amendment 252 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(27) The use of detention for the (27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be subject to the purpose of removal should be limited, principle of proportionality with regard to always used at last resort and subject to the means used and objectives pursued. the principle of proportionality with regard Detention is justified only to prepare the to the means used and objectives pursued. return or carry out the removal process and Detention is justified only to prepare the if the application of less coercive measures return or carry out the removal process and would not be sufficient. if the application of less coercive measures would not be sufficient.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is related to Article 18. Detention should never be automatic, especially as it has been proven that it is more harmful and less efficient.

Amendment 253 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 27

PE658.738v01-00 84/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(27) The use of detention for the (27) Deprivation of liberty should be purpose of removal should be subject to avoided and in any case never be applied the principle of proportionality with in closed spaces. If a Member State regard to the means used and objectives chooses to implement a return policy, pursued. Detention is justified only to alternatives to detention, in particular prepare the return or carry out the non-custodial, engagement-based models removal process and if the application of in the community, should always be less coercive measures would not be implemented. sufficient.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 18 on detention, to recital 28 and Article 18.

Amendment 254 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(28) Detention should be imposed, (28) In order to guarantee that Member following an individual assessment of States choosing to implement a return each case, where there is a risk of policy abide by fundamental rights absconding, where the third-country safeguards, this Directive should oblige national avoids or hampers the these Member States to provide for preparation of return or the removal alternatives to detention and set out process, or when the third country exhaustive and rights-based grounds for national concerned poses a risk to public the exceptional detention of a third- policy, public security or national country national a part of a return security. procedure and systematically exclude detention in closed spaces. Detention should never be imposed on vulnerable persons. As detention has a particularly detrimental physical and psychological impact on children, whether unaccompanied or separated or with their families, they should not be detained nor should their parents and customary primary caregivers accompanying the children. Detention is never in the best

AM\1214327EN.docx 85/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN interests of the child.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 27 and 40 and Article 18.

Amendment 255 Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Hilde Vautmans

Proposal for a directive Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(28) Detention should be imposed, (28) Detention should be imposed, following an individual assessment of each following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national avoids or where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third country removal process, or when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security. policy, public security or national security. Children, both when unaccompanied or separated and with their families, shall not be detained and Member States shall provide appropriate alternatives to detention in line with the New York Declaration for Refugee sand Migrant of 19 September 2016.

Or. en

Amendment 256 Monika Hohlmeier, Lena Düpont

Proposal for a directive Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(28) Detention should be imposed, (28) Detention should be imposed,

PE658.738v01-00 86/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN following an individual assessment of each following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national avoids or where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third country removal process, or when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security. policy, public security or national security, especially if belonging to terrorist or serious crime networks. This should also apply to minors between the age of 16 and 18, who have repeatedly committed criminal offences, thereby proving their unwillingness to abide by the law.

Or. en

Amendment 257 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a directive Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(28) Detention should be imposed, (28) Detention may be imposed, following an individual assessment of each following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national avoids or where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third removal process. country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. en

Justification

Detention should not become mandatory for Member States to impose, although it should be possible to do so. As it is costly, both to the Member States and to the third country national, financially and in terms of fundamental rights, the use of detention should not be default option. The new ground introduced by the Commission is not specific enough and can be properly dealt with under current criminal and administrative law

Amendment 258

AM\1214327EN.docx 87/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

According to NGOs and international organizations, it's absolutely not proven that the longer the detention is, the higher the rates of effective returns are. This amendment is linked to Article 18.

Amendment 259 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. it

Amendment 260

PE658.738v01-00 88/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Nadine Morano (PPE)

Proposal for a directive Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(28) Detention should be imposed, (28) Detention should always be following an individual assessment of each imposed, subject to an individual case, where there is a risk of absconding, assessment of each case, where there is a where the third-country national avoids or risk of absconding, where the third-country hampers the preparation of return or the national avoids or hampers the preparation removal process, or when the third country of return or the removal process, or when national concerned poses a risk to public the third country national concerned poses policy, public security or national security. a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. fr

Amendment 261 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod, Annalisa Tardino

Proposal for a directive Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(28) Detention should be imposed, (28) Detention should be imposed where following an individual assessment of there is a risk of absconding, where the each case, where there is a risk of third-country national does not cooperate absconding, where the third-country with all the stages in the removal process, national avoids or hampers the preparation avoids or hampers the preparation of return of return or the removal process, or when or the removal process, or poses a risk to the third country national concerned public policy, public security or national poses a risk to public policy, public security. security or national security.

Or. fr

Justification

The absence of national borders within the Schengen area makes it necessary to ensure the compulsory detention of third-country nationals who do not fully cooperate in order to prevent unauthorised secondary movements to other Member States and to promote the effectiveness of return decisions. This will also act as a deterrent, discouraging those considering illegal immigration, as they will be aware that they will be systematically

AM\1214327EN.docx 89/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN detained.

Amendment 262 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(28) Detention should be imposed, (28) Detention should be the default following an individual assessment of option, especially where there is a risk of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country absconding, where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when of return or the removal process, or when the third country national concerned poses the third country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or a risk to public policy, public security or national security. national security.

Or. nl

Justification

Detention should be the rule, and that rule should be applied especially when the applicant concerned is non-cooperative.

Amendment 263 Nadine Morano (PPE)

Proposal for a directive Recital 28 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(28a) With a view to combating the trafficking and fraudulent acknowledgement of children, where the national law provides for minors to be detained, the best interests of the child cannot, in themselves, provide grounds for not placing children in detention, whether this relates to the children themselves, their families or their relatives.

PE658.738v01-00 90/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Or. fr

Amendment 264 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(29) Given that maximum detention (29) Given that detention could be periods in some Member States are not ordered by an administrative or a judicial sufficient to ensure the implementation of authority and could only be justified when return, a maximum period of detention there is an evidence-based risk of between three and six months, which may absconding following an individual be prolonged, should be established in assessment, periodic judicial reviews of order to provide for sufficient time to the necessity and proportionality of the complete the return procedures detention of a third-country national in successfully, without prejudice to the each individual case should be carried out established safeguards ensuring that by a judicial authority within a reasonable detention is only applied when necessary time. The maximum detention period and proportionate and for as long as should be two weeks, which may be removal arrangements are in progress. prolonged, no more than one time, for a further period of up to two weeks, should this prove necessary and proportionate in order to complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is rights-based and not arbitrary.

Or. en

Amendment 265 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(29) Given that maximum detention (29) A maximum period of detention of periods in some Member States are not three months should be established in order sufficient to ensure the implementation of to provide for sufficient time to complete

AM\1214327EN.docx 91/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN return, a maximum period of detention the return procedures successfully, without between three and six months, which may prejudice to the established safeguards be prolonged, should be established in ensuring that detention is only applied order to provide for sufficient time to when necessary and proportionate and for complete the return procedures as long as removal arrangements are in successfully, without prejudice to the progress. This period may not be established safeguards ensuring that prolonged, except for twice for a period of detention is only applied when necessary up to three months each, each after and proportionate and for as long as judicial review, and only in cases where, removal arrangements are in progress. regardless of all the reasonable efforts by the Member State authorities, the removal operation is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned.

Or. en

Justification

As various sources, including the EP impact assessment, have shown, ever-longer detention periods have a limited impact on returns effectively happening. In light of the severe risks to human rights violations, prolonged detention can be imposed, but only when accompanied by continued judicial review.

Amendment 266 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(29) Given that maximum detention (29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention return, a maximum period of detention between three and six months, which may between three and six months, which may be prolonged, should be established in be prolonged, should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the successfully. established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.

PE658.738v01-00 92/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Or. fr

Justification

This amendment is necessary to ensure consistency with the amendments to Article 18 – paragraph 5 and Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2.

Amendment 267 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(29) Given that maximum detention (29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention return, a maximum period of detention between three and six months, which may between three and six months, which may be prolonged, should be established in be prolonged once only for a maximum of order to provide for sufficient time to a further six months, should be established complete the return procedures in order to provide for sufficient time to successfully, without prejudice to the complete the return procedures established safeguards ensuring that successfully, without prejudice to the detention is only applied when necessary established safeguards ensuring that and proportionate and for as long as detention is only applied when necessary removal arrangements are in progress. and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.

Or. it

Amendment 268 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(29) Given that maximum detention (29) The maximum period of detention periods in some Member States are not should be two months, which may be sufficient to ensure the implementation of prolonged, no more than two times, which return, a maximum period of detention means a maximum period of six months, between three and six months, which may in order to provide for sufficient time to be prolonged, should be established in complete the return procedures

AM\1214327EN.docx 93/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN order to provide for sufficient time to successfully, without prejudice to the complete the return procedures established safeguards ensuring that successfully, without prejudice to the detention is only applied when necessary established safeguards ensuring that and proportionate and for as long as detention is only applied when necessary removal arrangements are in progress. and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.

Or. en

Justification

According to NGOs and international organizations, it's absolutely not proven that the longer the detention is, the higher the rates of effective returns are. This amendment is linked to Article 18.

Amendment 269 Monika Hohlmeier, Lena Düpont

Proposal for a directive Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(29) Given that maximum detention (29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention return, a maximum period of detention between three and six months, which may between three and twelve months, which be prolonged, should be established in may be prolonged, should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress. removal arrangements are in progress.

Or. en

Amendment 270 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 29

PE658.738v01-00 94/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(29) Given that maximum detention (29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention return, a maximum period of detention between three and six months, which may between three and twelve months, which be prolonged, should be established in may be prolonged, should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress. removal arrangements are in progress.

Or. fr

Amendment 271 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 29 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(29a) Where the order to detain a third- country national has been issued in an administrative procedure, the court or tribunal responsible for assessing the lawfulness of that decision may take into account all relevant facts, evidence and observations that may be submitted by the parties concerned.

Or. fr

Amendment 272 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 30

AM\1214327EN.docx 95/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(30) This Directive should not preclude deleted Member States from laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties and criminal penalties, including imprisonment, in relation to the infringements of migration rules, provided that such penalties are compatible with the objectives of this Directive, do not compromise the application of this Directive and are in full respect of fundamental rights.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is out of scope.

Amendment 273 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 274 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

PE658.738v01-00 96/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Proposal for a directive Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. it

Amendment 275 Monika Hohlmeier, Lena Düpont

Proposal for a directive Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(30) This Directive should not preclude (30) This Directive encourages Member Member States from laying down States to lay down effective, proportionate effective, proportionate and dissuasive and dissuasive penalties and criminal penalties and criminal penalties, including penalties, including imprisonment, in imprisonment, in relation to the relation to the infringements of migration infringements of migration rules, provided rules, especially with regard to convicted that such penalties are compatible with the terrorists, organised crime offenders and objectives of this Directive, do not offenders of severe crimes such as rape, compromise the application of this provided that such penalties are compatible Directive and are in full respect of with the objectives of this Directive, do not fundamental rights. compromise the application of this Directive and are in full respect of fundamental rights.

Or. en

Amendment 276 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

AM\1214327EN.docx 97/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Proposal for a directive Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(30) This Directive should not preclude (30) This Directive does not have the Member States from laying down effective, effect of precluding Member States from proportionate and dissuasive penalties and laying down effective, proportionate and criminal penalties, including imprisonment, dissuasive penalties and criminal penalties, in relation to the infringements of including fines and imprisonment, in migration rules, provided that such relation to the infringements of migration penalties are compatible with the rules, provided that such penalties are objectives of this Directive, do not compatible with the objectives of this compromise the application of this Directive, do not compromise the Directive and are in full respect of application of this Directive and are in full fundamental rights. respect of fundamental rights.

Or. fr

Amendment 277 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 31

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(31) Third-country nationals in (31) Third-country nationals should be detention should be treated in a humane treated in a humane and dignified manner and dignified manner with respect for their with respect for their fundamental rights fundamental rights and in compliance with and in compliance with international and international and national law. Without national law. Without prejudice to the prejudice to the initial apprehension by initial apprehension by law-enforcement law-enforcement authorities, regulated by authorities, regulated by national national legislation, detention should, as a legislation, third-country nationals who rule, take place in specialised detention are found in an irregular situation should, facilities. as a rule, be hosted in an open reception facility while Member States are looking into the possibility to regularise their situation based on their existing ties to the Member State.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 98/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to an amendment tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 278 Maria Grapini

Proposal for a directive Recital 31

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(31) Third-country nationals in detention (31) Third-country nationals in detention should be treated in a humane and should be treated in an equally humane dignified manner with respect for their and dignified manner in all the EU fundamental rights and in compliance with Member States with respect for their international and national law. Without fundamental rights and in compliance with prejudice to the initial apprehension by international and national law. Without law-enforcement authorities, regulated by prejudice to the initial apprehension by national legislation, detention should, as a law-enforcement authorities, regulated by rule, take place in specialised detention national legislation, detention should, as a facilities. rule, take place in specialised detention facilities.

Or. ro

Amendment 279 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 31 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(31a) Children's rights apply to both cases involving unaccompanied and separated children and children within families. In the case of families, Member States should respect and protect the rights of each child within the family and his or her right to private and family life, and should also take into full account the safety of the child within the family. Appropriate care and accommodation arrangements that enable children and families to live together in communities

AM\1214327EN.docx 99/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN should be implemented. Children should not be separated from their parents. In keeping with the principles of family unity and the bests interests of the child, families should be kept together unless the child's safety is at risk. Forced return of children should never occur. Children and families should be provided with documentation indicating that they are in an ongoing procedure and not subject to detention. Children and parents should be ensured access to education, health care and other services.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40. This amendment is also strictly linked to changes proposed to Article 12 on return and removals of minors and Article 20 on detention of minors and their families.

Amendment 280 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 31 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(31a) In view of the fact that third- country nationals detained for the purpose of removal are not detained as persons suspected of criminal activities or convicted of criminal offences, they should not be accommodated together with ordinary prisoners. It is also possible to ensure this separation by accommodating these third-country nationals in sections of penal institutions that are set aside and used solely for that purpose.

Or. fr

PE658.738v01-00 100/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

This amendment follows from recital 4 and emphasises the specific nature of third-country nationals in an irregular situation. It is also closely linked to Article 19(1).

Amendment 281 Monika Hohlmeier

Proposal for a directive Recital 31 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(31a) Member States' obligation to respect and protect the rights of children and families may also include the option to reunite children and their parents or vice versa in third countries outside the European Union

Or. en

Amendment 282 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 31 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(31b) An independent and qualifies guardian with the necessary expertise and training to ensure the best interests of the child are fully taken into consideration should be appointed to assist unaccompanied and separated children. To that end, the guardian should be involved in the procedure to find a durable solution for the child in his or her best interests.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and

AM\1214327EN.docx 101/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN 40. This amendment is also strictly linked to changes proposed to Article 12 on return and removal of minors and Article 20 on detention of minors and their families.

Amendment 283 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(32) Without prejudice to the possibility deleted for Member States not to apply this Directive with regard to the cases referred to in Article 2(2)(a), if a border procedure is applied in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], a specific border procedure should follow for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals whose application for international protection under that asylum border procedure has been rejected in order to ensure direct complementarity between the asylum and return border procedures and prevent gaps between the procedures. In such cases, it is necessary to establish specific rules that ensure the coherence and synergy between the two procedures and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the whole process.

Or. it

Amendment 284 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(32) Without prejudice to the possibility deleted for Member States not to apply this Directive with regard to the cases referred

PE658.738v01-00 102/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN to in Article 2(2)(a), when a border procedure is applied in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], a specific border procedure should follow for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals whose application for international protection under that asylum border procedure has been rejected in order to ensure direct complementarity between the asylum and return border procedures and prevent gaps between the procedures. In such cases, it is necessary to establish specific rules that ensure the coherence and synergy between the two procedures and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the whole process.

Or. en

Amendment 285 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache

Proposal for a directive Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(32) Without prejudice to the possibility deleted for Member States not to apply this Directive with regard to the cases referred to in Article 2(2)(a), when a border procedure is applied in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], a specific border procedure should follow for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals whose application for international protection under that asylum border procedure has been rejected in order to ensure direct complementarity between the asylum and return border procedures and prevent gaps between the procedures. In such cases, it is necessary to establish specific rules that ensure the coherence and synergy between the two procedures

AM\1214327EN.docx 103/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the whole process.

Or. en

Justification

In line with the proposed deletion of Art 22, the border procedure as proposed by the Commission in this recast cannot be properly legislated on here without a view on the Asylum Procedures Regulation. On top, the border procedure as proposed foresees limited rights and risks undermining the actual safeguards foreseen in this Directive.

Amendment 286 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Consistency is needed. Clarity and coherence are the best tools to avoid violations of human rights. The parallel regime of article 2 (2)(a) goes against that. Moreover, this amendment is

PE658.738v01-00 104/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN related to Article 22 and without a decision on this issue in APR, which codifies all the provisions on the border procedure and especially the safeguards, it is nearly impossible to amend Article 22, without risking having breaches on fundamental rights.

Amendment 287 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(32) Without prejudice to the possibility (32) Without prejudice to the possibility for Member States not to apply this for Member States not to apply this Directive with regard to the cases referred Directive with regard to the cases referred to in Article 2(2)(a), if a border procedure to in Article 2(2)(a), if a border procedure is applied in accordance with Regulation is applied in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], a specific border procedure Regulation], a specific border procedure should follow for the return of illegally should follow for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals whose staying third-country nationals whose application for international protection application for international protection under that asylum border procedure has under that asylum border procedure has been rejected in order to ensure direct been rejected in order to ensure direct complementarity between the asylum and complementarity between the asylum and return border procedures and prevent gaps return border procedures and prevent gaps between the procedures. In such cases, it is between the procedures. In such cases, it is necessary to establish specific rules that necessary to establish specific rules that ensure the coherence and synergy between ensure the coherence and synergy between the two procedures and preserve the the two procedures and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the whole integrity and effectiveness of the whole process. process. Member States should be able to rely on appropriate Union funding to carry out the necessary activities for the border procedure.

Or. fr

Amendment 288 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 33

AM\1214327EN.docx 105/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(33) To ensure effective return in the deleted context of the border procedure, a period for voluntary departure should not be granted. However, a period for voluntary departure should be granted to third- country nationals who hold a valid travel document and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. In such cases, to prevent absconding, third-country nationals should hand over the travel document to the competent authority until their departure.

Or. it

Amendment 289 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 290

PE658.738v01-00 106/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache

Proposal for a directive Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 291 Charlie Weimers, Emmanouil Fragkos

Proposal for a directive Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(33) To ensure effective return in the (33) A period for voluntary departure context of the border procedure, a period should be granted to third-country for voluntary departure should not be nationals who hold a valid travel document granted. However, a period for voluntary and cooperate with the competent departure should be granted to third- authorities of the Member States at all country nationals who hold a valid travel stages of the return procedures. In such document and cooperate with the cases, to prevent absconding, third-country

AM\1214327EN.docx 107/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN competent authorities of the Member States nationals should hand over the travel at all stages of the return procedures. In document to the competent authority until such cases, to prevent absconding, third- their departure. country nationals should hand over the travel document to the competent authority until their departure.

Or. en

Amendment 292 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(33) To ensure effective return in the (33) A period for voluntary departure context of the border procedure, a period may in exceptional circumstances be for voluntary departure should not be granted to third-country nationals who hold granted. However, a period for voluntary a valid travel document and cooperate with departure should be granted to third- the competent authorities of the Member country nationals who hold a valid travel States at all stages of the return procedures. document and cooperate with the In such cases, to prevent absconding, third- competent authorities of the Member States country nationals should hand over the at all stages of the return procedures. In travel document to the competent authority such cases, to prevent absconding, third- until their departure. country nationals should hand over the travel document to the competent authority until their departure.

Or. nl

Justification

Given the complete failure of current voluntary return policies, forced return should be the default option.

Amendment 293 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 33

PE658.738v01-00 108/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(33) To ensure effective return in the (33) To ensure effective return in the context of the border procedure, a period context of the border procedure, this for voluntary departure should not be procedure should not result in a period for granted. However, a period for voluntary voluntary departure being granted. departure should be granted to third- However, a period for voluntary departure country nationals who hold a valid travel may be granted to third-country nationals document and cooperate with the who hold a valid travel document and competent authorities of the Member States cooperate with the competent authorities of at all stages of the return procedures. In the Member States at all stages of the such cases, to prevent absconding, third- return procedures. In such cases, to prevent country nationals should hand over the absconding, third-country nationals should travel document to the competent authority hand over the travel document to the until their departure. competent authority until their departure.

Or. fr

Amendment 294 Monika Hohlmeier, Lena Düpont

Proposal for a directive Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(33) To ensure effective return in the (33) To ensure effective return in the context of the border procedure, a period context of the border procedure, a period for voluntary departure should not be for voluntary departure should not be granted. However, a period for voluntary granted. However, a period for voluntary departure should be granted to third- departure may be granted to third-country country nationals who hold a valid travel nationals who hold a valid travel document document and cooperate with the and cooperate fully with the competent competent authorities of the Member States authorities of the Member States at all at all stages of the return procedures. In stages of the return procedures. In such such cases, to prevent absconding, third- cases, to prevent absconding, third-country country nationals should hand over the nationals should hand over the travel travel document to the competent authority document to the competent authority until until their departure. their departure.

Or. en

Amendment 295 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

AM\1214327EN.docx 109/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Proposal for a directive Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(34) For a rapid treatment of the case, deleted a maximum time limit is to be granted to appeal against a return decision following a decision rejecting an application for international protection adopted under the border procedure and which became final.

Or. it

Amendment 296 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache

Proposal for a directive Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 297 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive

PE658.738v01-00 110/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 298 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is linked to the deletion of Article 22.

Amendment 299 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(34) For a rapid treatment of the case, a (34) For a rapid and effective treatment maximum time limit is to be granted to of the case, a maximum time limit is to be

AM\1214327EN.docx 111/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN appeal against a return decision following a granted to appeal against a return decision decision rejecting an application for following a decision rejecting an international protection adopted under the application for international protection border procedure and which became final. adopted under the border procedure and which became final.

Or. fr

Amendment 300 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(34) For a rapid treatment of the case, a (34) For a rapid treatment of the case, a maximum time limit is to be granted to maximum time limit is to be granted to appeal against a return decision following a appeal against a return decision at the decision rejecting an application for latest together with a decision rejecting an international protection adopted under the application for international protection border procedure and which became final. adopted under the border procedure.

Or. nl

Justification

Only one appeal should remain against a single administrative act that comprises both a return decision and a decision rejecting an application for international protection. The notion of ‘whether or not a decision is final' is superfluous and creates confusion within the procedure.

Amendment 301 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 112/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN 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.

Or. it

Amendment 302 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(35) An appeal against a return deleted decision taken in the context of the border procedure should 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.

Or. nl

Justification

As stated earlier, the return decision and the decision to refuse his or her application must form part of one and the same administrative act. This makes the main considerations of this recital superfluous. The principle of non-refoulement has already been sufficiently confirmed in this text.

AM\1214327EN.docx 113/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 303 Nadine Morano (PPE)

Proposal for a directive Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. fr

Amendment 304 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 114/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN 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.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is linked to the deletion of Article 22.

Amendment 305 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 306 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache

Proposal for a directive

AM\1214327EN.docx 115/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 307 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(35) An appeal against a return decision (35) An appeal against a return decision taken in the context of the border taken in the context of the border procedure should have an automatic procedure should not have an automatic suspensive effect in cases where there is a suspensive effect. 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

PE658.738v01-00 116/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN 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.

Or. fr

Amendment 308 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(36) It is necessary and proportionate deleted to ensure that a third country national who was already detained during the examination of his or her application for international protection as part of the asylum border procedure may be kept in detention in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, once his or her application has been rejected. To avoid that a third country national is automatically released from detention and allowed entry into the territory of the Member State despite having been denied a right to stay, a limited period of time is needed in order to try to enforce the return decision issued at the border. The third-country national concerned may be detained in the context of the border procedure for a maximum period of four months and as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence. That period of detention should be without prejudice to other periods of detention established by this Directive. Where it has not been possible to enforce return by the end of the former period, further detention of the third-country national

AM\1214327EN.docx 117/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN may be ordered under another provision of this Directive and for the duration provided for therein.

Or. it

Amendment 309 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 118/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

This amendment is linked to the deletion of Article 22.

Amendment 310 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 119/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 311 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache

Proposal for a directive Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

PE658.738v01-00 120/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 312 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 37

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(37) Member States should have rapid deleted access to information on return decisions and entry bans issued by other Member States. Such access should take place in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/…14 [Regulation on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third country nationals] and Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council15 , including to facilitate mutual recognition of these decisions amongst competent authorities, by virtue of Council Directive 2001/40/EC16 and Council Decision 2004/191/EC17 . ______14 [Regulation on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third country nationals] (OJ L …). 15 Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (OJ L 381, 28.12.2006, p. 4). 16 Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third- country nationals (OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p. 34). 17 Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third- country nationals, OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p. 34; and Council Decision 2004/191/EC of

AM\1214327EN.docx 121/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN 23 February 2004 setting out the criteria and practical arrangements for the compensation of the financial imbalances resulting from the application of Directive 2001/40/EC on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third- country nationals (OJ L 60, 27.2.2004, p. 55).

Or. en

Amendment 313 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 37 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(37a) Mutual recognition of return decisions may help to ensure a more effective implementation of returns. Member States should make use of all available means of cooperation and exchanges of information for this purpose. The Commission should assess the EU’s returns legislation with a view to achieving a more uniform and consistent implementation of return decisions, and reducing the administrative burden on the national authorities, notably through mutual recognition of return decisions; it should also consider submitting a legislative proposal in that respect. 

Or. fr

Amendment 314 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 122/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN (38) Establishing return management deleted 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 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].

Or. en

Amendment 315 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod, Annalisa Tardino

Proposal for a directive Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(38) Establishing return management (38) Establishing return management systems in Member States contributes to systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that situation of the third country national that are relevant for monitoring and following are relevant for monitoring and following up on individual cases. To operate up on individual cases. To operate efficiently and in order to significantly efficiently and in order to significantly reduce the administrative burden, such reduce the administrative burden, such national return systems should be linked to national return systems should be linked to the Schengen Information System to the Schengen Information System, to facilitate and speed up the entering of Eurodac and to all the databases used to return-related information, as well as to the identify third country nationals, to central system established by the European facilitate and speed up the entering of Border and Coast Guard Agency in return-related information, as well as to the accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… central system established by the European

AM\1214327EN.docx 123/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN [EBCG Regulation]. Border and Coast Guard Agency in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation].

Or. fr

Amendment 316 Monika Hohlmeier

Proposal for a directive Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(38) Establishing return management (38) Establishing return management systems in Member States contributes to systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that situation of the third country national that are relevant for monitoring and following are relevant for monitoring and following up on individual cases. To operate up on individual cases. To operate efficiently and in order to significantly efficiently and in order to significantly reduce the administrative burden, such reduce the administrative burden, such national return systems should be linked to national return systems should be linked to the Schengen Information System to the Schengen Information System to facilitate and speed up the entering of facilitate and speed up the entering of return-related information, as well as to the return-related information, as well as to the central system established by the European central system established by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in Border and Coast Guard Agency in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation]. [EBCG Regulation] as well as other relevant central information systems.

Or. en

Amendment 317 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(38) Establishing return management (38) Establishing return management

PE658.738v01-00 124/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN systems in Member States contributes to systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that situation of the third country national that are relevant for monitoring and following are relevant and complete for monitoring up on individual cases. To operate and following up on individual cases. To efficiently and in order to significantly operate efficiently and in order to reduce the administrative burden, such significantly reduce the administrative national return systems should be linked to burden, such national return systems the Schengen Information System to should be linked to the Schengen facilitate and speed up the entering of Information System to facilitate and speed return-related information, as well as to the up the entering of return-related central system established by the European information, as well as to the central Border and Coast Guard Agency in system established by the European Border accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… and Coast Guard Agency in accordance [EBCG Regulation]. with Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation].

Or. fr

Amendment 318 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 38 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(38a) When, following a best interest assessment, it is established that return would be in a child's best interest, Member States should ensure that specific safeguards are in place for separated or unaccompanied children returning to a third country. Where family has been traced, Member States should ensure that child-protection actors, through appropriate case management, whether family reunification is in the child's best interest, whether the family is willing and able to receive the child and provide suitable immediate care, and take into account both the child's and the family's views on reunification. Family tracing should only be done by qualified actors and following a best interest's assessment

AM\1214327EN.docx 125/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN to ensure restoring contact would not be contrary to a child's best interest. Where tracing is unsuccessful or where family reunification is not found not to be in the child's best interest, return should not occur.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40. This amendment is also strictly linked to changes made to Article 12 and 20.

Amendment 319 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 38 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(38a) EU data protection legislation is applicable to any processing of personal data in the return management systems of the Member states, including the communication of this data to the central system operated by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. Return management systems should respect the principles of lawfulness, fairness and transparency; purpose limitation; data minimisation; accuracy; storage limitation; integrity and confidentiality; and accountability of the data controller. The national return management systems should not contain any information obtained during the personal interview carried out on the basis of Article 15 of Directive 2013/32/EU (Asylum Procedures Directive).

Or. en

Justification

The return management systems should respect the current European regulation regarding

PE658.738v01-00 126/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN the data protection. This amendment is linked to Article 14.

Amendment 320 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 39

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(39) Cooperation between the (39) Cooperation between the sovereign institutions involved at all levels in the Member States, cooperation between the return process and the exchange and institutions involved at all levels in the promotion of best practices, including by return process and the exchange and taking into account and regularly updating promotion of best practices, including by the Return Handbook to reflect legal and taking into account and regularly updating policy developments, should accompany the Return Handbook to reflect legal and the implementation of this Directive and policy developments, should accompany provide European added value. the implementation of this Directive.

Or. nl

Amendment 321 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 40

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(40) The Union provides financial and (40) The Union provides financial and operational support in order to achieve an operational support in order to achieve an effective implementation of this Directive. effective and fundamental rights Member States should make best use of the compliant implementation of this available Union financial instruments, Directive. Member States should make best programmes and projects in the field of use of the available Union financial return, in particular under Regulation (EU) instruments, programmes and projects in …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum the field of return, in particular under and Migration Fund], as well as of the Regulation (EU) …/… [Regulation operational assistance by the European establishing the Asylum and Migration Border and Coast Guard Agency Fund]. Such support should be used in according to Regulation (EU) …/… particular for establishing appropriate case [EBCG Regulation]. Such support should management programmes, protection for be used in particular for establishing return persons in vulnerable situations, management systems and programmes for including measures to ensure effective

AM\1214327EN.docx 127/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN providing logistical, financial and other protection of children in migration as well material or in-kind assistance to support as of pregnant women and victims of the return – and where relevant the trafficking, provision of information, reintegration – of illegally staying third- legal aid and interpretation, development country nationals. and implementation of effective non custodial engagement based alternatives to detention, independent forced returns monitoring systems, and programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance to support the return – and the reintegration – of irregularly staying third-country nationals.

Or. en

Amendment 322 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Maite Pagazaurtundúa

Proposal for a directive Recital 40

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(40) The Union provides financial and (40) The Union provides financial and operational support in order to achieve an operational support in order to achieve an effective implementation of this Directive. effective implementation of this Directive. Member States should make best use of the Member States should make best use of the available Union financial instruments, available Union financial instruments, programmes and projects in the field of programmes and projects in the field of return, in particular under Regulation (EU) return, in particular under Regulation (EU) …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund], as well as of the and Migration Fund], as well as of the operational assistance by the European operational assistance by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency according Border and Coast Guard Agency according to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation]. Such support should be used Regulation]. Such support should be used in particular for establishing return in particular for establishing return management systems and programmes for management systems and programmes for providing logistical, financial and other providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance to support material or in-kind assistance to support the return – and where relevant the the return and the reintegration and post- reintegration – of illegally staying third- return monitoring of irregularly staying country nationals. third-country nationals.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 128/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 323 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 40

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(40) The Union provides financial and (40) The Union provides financial and operational support in order to achieve an operational support in order to achieve an effective implementation of this Directive. effective implementation of this Directive. Member States should make best use of the Member States should make best use of the available Union financial instruments, available Union financial instruments, programmes and projects in the field of programmes and projects in the field of return, in particular under Regulation (EU) return, in particular under Regulation (EU) …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund], as well as of the and Migration Fund], as well as of the operational assistance by the European operational assistance by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency according Border and Coast Guard Agency according to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation]. Such support should be used Regulation]. Such support should be used in particular for establishing return in particular for establishing return management systems and programmes for management systems and programmes for providing logistical, financial and other providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance to support material or in-kind assistance to support the return – and where relevant the the sustainable return and the reintegration reintegration – of illegally staying third- of irregularly staying third-country country nationals. nationals.

Or. fr

Amendment 324 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 40

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 129/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN return, in particular under Regulation (EU) return, in particular under Regulation (EU) …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund], as well as of the and Migration Fund], as well as of the operational assistance by the European operational assistance by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency according Border and Coast Guard Agency according to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation]. Such support should be used Regulation]. Such support should be used in particular for establishing return in particular for establishing return management systems and programmes for management systems and programmes for providing logistical, financial and other providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance to support material or in-kind assistance to support the return – and where relevant the the return and the reintegration of reintegration – of illegally staying third- irregularly staying third-country nationals. country nationals.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 325 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 41

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(41) Since the objective of this (41) Since the objective of this Directive, namely to establish common Directive, namely to establish rights-based rules concerning return, removal, use of rules concerning return and removal coercive measures, detention and entry cannot be sufficiently achieved by all the bans, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States and can therefore, by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, be better reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union . In accordance with the principle of Union . In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary and proportionate to achieve necessary to achieve that objective. that objective.

PE658.738v01-00 130/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments to recital 4.

Amendment 326 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 42

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(42) Member States should implement deleted this Directive without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinions, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Or. nl

Justification

It is especially the case that, when assessing an asylum application, the Member State concerned should take into account all particular factors specific to the individual which may constitute a ground for persecution in the country of origin. It is therefore impossible to ask Member States not to take personal characteristics into account. The prohibition of discrimination derives from international human rights conventions and should not be repeated here.

Amendment 327 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Recital 43

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(43) In line with the 1989 United (43) In line with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the ‘best interests of the child’ Child, the ‘best interests of the child’ should be a primary consideration of should be a primary consideration of

AM\1214327EN.docx 131/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Member States when implementing this Member States when implementing this Directive. In line with the European Directive. In line with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, respect Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, respect for family life should be a primary for family life should be a primary consideration of Member States when consideration of Member States when implementing this Directive. implementing this Directive. However, these rights should not be abused in order to circumvent or weaken the asylum system.

Or. nl

Justification

Minors are now being used by families to force through a second asylum claim for the family on the basis of the right to family life. This system puts minors at the mercy of all the dangers of the journey. A strict application of the right to asylum is therefore also in the interests of the children, who are no longer put at risk on behalf of their parents. This amendment is linked to recital 3 on the the need to achieve effective return and recital 4 on the sovereignty of the Member States.

Amendment 328 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 44

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(44) Application of this Directive is (44) Application of this Directive is without prejudice to the obligations without prejudice to the obligations resulting from the Geneva Convention resulting from the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as amended by the New York July 1951, as amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967. Protocol of 31 January 1967, from the 1954 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and from the 1989 United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 132/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 329 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto

Proposal for a directive Recital 44

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. fr

Justification

The New York Protocol of 31 January 1967, and in particular Article 1(2), expands the definition of the status of refugees to a number of persons that has become completely disproportionate. In order to reform the European Union’s asylum and return policy to bring it into line with current and future challenges, this must be re-examined.

Amendment 330 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 45

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(45) This Directive respects the (45) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 133/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 331 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 46

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(46) The purpose of an effective deleted 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 and represents an important reason of substantial public interest.

Or. en

Amendment 332 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Recital 46

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(46) The purpose of an effective (46) The purpose of an effective implementation of the return of third- implementation of the return of third- country nationals who do not fulfil or no country nationals who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in the Member States, in or residence in the Member States, in accordance with this Directive, is an accordance with this Directive, is an essential component of the comprehensive essential component of the comprehensive efforts to tackle irregular migration and efforts to tackle irregular migration and represents an important reason of represents an important element of an substantial public interest. overall approach to migration, combining more effective control of the Union’s external borders, reinforcement of external action and the internal

PE658.738v01-00 134/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN dimension.

Or. it

Amendment 333 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 46

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(46) The purpose of an effective (46) The purpose of an effective and implementation of the return of third- dignified implementation of the return of country nationals who do not fulfil or no third-country nationals who do not fulfil or longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, or residence in the Member States, in stay or residence in the Member States, in accordance with this Directive, is an accordance with this Directive, is one of essential component of the comprehensive the components of the European efforts to tackle irregular migration and migration policy. represents an important reason of substantial public interest.

Or. en

Amendment 334 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod, Annalisa Tardino

Proposal for a directive Recital 46

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(46) The purpose of an effective (46) The purpose of an effective implementation of the return of third- implementation of the return of third- country nationals who do not fulfil or no country nationals who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in the Member States, in or residence in the Member States, in accordance with this Directive, is an accordance with this Directive, is an essential component of the comprehensive essential component of the comprehensive efforts to tackle irregular migration and efforts to tackle irregular migration, based represents an important reason of on the principle of deterrence, and substantial public interest. represents an important reason of substantial public interest.

AM\1214327EN.docx 135/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Or. fr

Amendment 335 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Recital 46

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(46) The purpose of an effective (46) The purpose of an effective implementation of the return of third- implementation of the return of third- country nationals who do not fulfil or no country nationals who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in the Member States, in or residence in the Member States, in accordance with this Directive, is an accordance with this Directive, is an essential component of the comprehensive essential component of European Union efforts to tackle irregular migration and migration policy and the fight against represents an important reason of illegal immigration. It represents an substantial public interest. important reason of substantial public interest.

Or. fr

Amendment 336 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 136/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN otherwise provide for appropriate of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. safeguards within the meaning of Article Readmission agreements, concluded or 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within being negotiated by the Union or the the meaning of the national provisions Member States and providing for transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) appropriate safeguards for the transfer of 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of data to third countries pursuant to Article the Union in cooperating with the main 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 cover a countries of origin of illegally staying limited number of such third countries. In third-country nationals subject to an the situation where such agreements do not obligation to return, it is not always exist, personal data should not be possible to ensure such third countries transferred to authorities of third systematically fulfil the obligation countries. established by international law to readmit their own nationals. 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. ______18 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the 18 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1). Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, 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

AM\1214327EN.docx 137/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN 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).

Or. en

Justification

Cooperation with third countries should only be based on official and formal agreements to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. This amendment is linked to Article 3.

Amendment 337 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(47) Member States' return authorities (47) Member States' return authorities need to process personal data to ensure the need to process personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return proper implementation of return procedures and the successful enforcement procedures and the successful enforcement of return decisions. The third countries of of return decisions. The third countries of return are often not the subject of adequacy return are often not the subject of adequacy decisions adopted by the Commission decisions adopted by the Commission under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , or under Article 36 of of the Council18 , or under Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/68019 , and have often Directive (EU) 2016/68019, and have often not concluded or do not intend to conclude not concluded or do not intend to conclude a readmission agreement with the Union or a readmission agreement with the Union or otherwise provide for appropriate otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within the meaning of the national provisions the meaning of the national provisions transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of 2016/680. The Union should thus the Union in cooperating with the main cooperate with the main countries of origin countries of origin of illegally staying of irregularly staying third-country third-country nationals subject to an nationals subject to an obligation to return, obligation to return, it is not always to ensure such third countries possible to ensure such third countries systematically fulfil the obligation systematically fulfil the obligation established by international law to readmit

PE658.738v01-00 138/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN established by international law to readmit their own nationals. Readmission their own nationals. Readmission agreements should therefore be concluded agreements, concluded or being negotiated and negotiated by the Union, providing for by the Union or the Member States and appropriate safeguards for the transfer of providing for appropriate safeguards for data to third countries pursuant to Article the transfer of data to third countries 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) pursuant to the national provisions 2016/679 or pursuant to the national transposing Article 36 of Directive (EU) provisions transposing Article 36 of 2016/680. 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. ______18 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the 18 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1). Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1). 19 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the 19 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 89). 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 89).

Or. en

Amendment 338

AM\1214327EN.docx 139/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(47) Member States' return authorities (47) Member States' return authorities need to process personal data to ensure the processing of personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return proper implementation of return procedures and the successful enforcement procedures should be in line with Article 8 of return decisions. The third countries of of the Charter of fundamental rights and return are often not the subject of adequacy the Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in decisions adopted by the Commission particular Article 9 (2)(g). Particular under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) attention should be paid to ensuring the 2016/679 of the European Parliament and proportionality and the existence of of the Council18 , or under Article 36 of suitable and specific measures to Directive (EU) 2016/68019 , and have often safeguard the fundamental rights and the not concluded or do not intend to conclude interests of the data subject. Member a readmission agreement with the Union or States should avoid any contact with an otherwise provide for appropriate asylum applicant's country of origin as safeguards within the meaning of Article long as the final decision of the 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within application for international protection the meaning of the national provisions has not been taken. The third countries of transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) return are often not the subject of adequacy 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of decisions adopted by the Commission the Union in cooperating with the main under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) countries of origin of illegally staying 2016/679 of the European Parliament and third-country nationals subject to an of the Council18 , and have often not obligation to return, it is not always concluded a readmission agreement with possible to ensure such third countries the Union or otherwise provide for systematically fulfil the obligation appropriate safeguards within the meaning established by international law to of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. readmit their own nationals. Readmission Readmission agreements, concluded or agreements, concluded or being negotiated being negotiated by the Union or the by the Union or the Member States and Member States and providing for providing for appropriate safeguards for appropriate safeguards for the transfer of the transfer of data to third countries data to third countries pursuant to Article pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, should 2016/679 or pursuant to the national include binding and enforceable data provisions transposing Article 36 of protection assurances by those third Directive (EU) 2016/680, cover a limited countries. In the situation where such number of such third countries. In the agreements do not exist, personal data situation where such agreements do not should not be transferred by Member exist, personal data should be transferred States' competent authorities to authorities by Member States' competent authorities of third countries. for the purposes of implementing the return operations of the Union, in line with the conditions laid down in Article

PE658.738v01-00 140/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN 49(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in the national provisions transposing Article 38 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. ______18 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the 18 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1). Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, 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).

Or. en

Amendment 339 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod, Annalisa Tardino

Proposal for a directive Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 141/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Directive (EU) 2016/68019, and have often Directive (EU) 2016/68019, and have often not concluded or do not intend to conclude not concluded or do not intend to conclude a readmission agreement with the Union or a readmission agreement with the Union or otherwise provide for appropriate otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within the meaning of the national provisions the meaning of the national provisions transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of the Union in cooperating with the main the Union in cooperating with the main countries of origin of illegally staying countries of origin of illegally staying third-country nationals subject to an third-country nationals subject to an obligation to return, it is not always obligation to return, it is not always possible to ensure such third countries possible to ensure such third countries systematically fulfil the obligation systematically fulfil the obligation established by international law to readmit established by international law to readmit their own nationals. Readmission their own nationals. Policies involving agreements, concluded or being negotiated diplomatic and economic pressure should by the Union or the Member States and be applied in order to encourage them to providing for appropriate safeguards for do so. Readmission agreements, concluded the transfer of data to third countries or being negotiated by the Union or the pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) Member States and providing for 2016/679 or pursuant to the national appropriate safeguards for the transfer of provisions transposing Article 36 of data to third countries pursuant to Article Directive (EU) 2016/680, cover a limited 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or number of such third countries. In the pursuant to the national provisions situation where such agreements do not transposing Article 36 of Directive (EU) exist, personal data should be transferred 2016/680, cover a limited number of such by Member States' competent authorities third countries. In the situation where such for the purposes of implementing the return agreements do not exist, personal data operations of the Union, in line with the should be transferred by Member States' conditions laid down in Article 49(1)(d) of competent authorities for the purposes of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in the implementing the return operations of the national provisions transposing Article 38 Union, in line with the conditions laid of Directive (EU) 2016/680. down in Article 49(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in the national provisions transposing Article 38 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. ______18 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the 18 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1 p. 1. Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1 p. 1.

PE658.738v01-00 142/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN 19 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the 19 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89). 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89).

Or. fr

Amendment 340 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Recital 54

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(54) The obligation to transpose this deleted Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive amendment as compared to the earlier Directive. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under the earlier Directive.

Or. en

Amendment 341 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

This Directive sets out common standards This Directive sets out standards and and procedures to be applied in Member procedures to be applied in Member States States for returning illegally staying third- which choose to implement a policy for

AM\1214327EN.docx 143/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN country nationals, in accordance with returning irregularly staying third-country fundamental rights as general principles of nationals, in order to ensure its Union law as well as international law, compliance with fundamental rights as including refugee protection and human general principles of Union law as well as rights obligations. international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 342 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

This Directive sets out common standards This Directive sets out common standards and procedures to be applied in Member and procedures to be applied in Member States for returning illegally staying third- States for returning irregularly staying country nationals, in accordance with third-country nationals, in accordance with fundamental rights as general principles of fundamental rights as general principles of Union law as well as international law, Union law as well as international law, including refugee protection and human including refugee protection and human rights obligations. rights obligations.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 343 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1

PE658.738v01-00 144/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. This Directive applies to third- 1. This Directive applies to third- country nationals staying illegally on the country nationals staying irregularly on the territory of a Member State. territory of a Member State.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 344 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) are subject to a refusal of entry in deleted accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 , or who are apprehended or intercepted by the competent authorities in connection with the irregular crossing by land, sea or air of the external border of a Member State and who have not subsequently obtained an authorisation or a right to stay in that Member State;

Or. it

Justification

This amendment is needed because it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28, 29 and 30 and to Articles 18, 19 and 20 of this Directive.

Amendment 345 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a

AM\1214327EN.docx 145/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is linked to amendments tabled to article 22. The exclusion of certain categories of third country nationals from the scope of the directive and non application of key safeguards such as the right to an effective remedy is problematic from the perspective of legal certainty and non discrimination.

Amendment 346 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Birgit Sippel, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 146/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

Consistency is needed. Clarity and coherence are the best tools to avoid violations of human rights. The parallel regime of article 2 (2)(a) goes against that.

Amendment 347 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) are subject to return as a criminal (b) are subject to return as a criminal law sanction or as a consequence of a law sanction or as a consequence of a criminal law sanction, according to criminal law sanction as a result of a national law, or who are the subject of serious crime, according to national law, extradition procedures. or who are the subject of extradition procedures., providing the rights of the returnee, including the rights to fair trial have been guaranteed;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to article 16.

Amendment 348 Balázs Hidvéghi

Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2a. Member States may decide not to apply this Directive to third-country nationals in case of mass influx of migrants into their respected territory.

Or. en

Justification

When there is a crisis situation, such as a mass influx of migrants into the territory of Member

AM\1214327EN.docx 147/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN States, the administrative burden on Member States shall be eased. Thus, Member States shall have the possibility in crisis situations to derogate from the provisions of the Directive, enabling them to return illegally staying third country nationals in a simplified and faster procedure. The amendment is linked to recitals (2) and (3) as it contributes to an important aspect of better migration management and it is a pre-requisite for an effective return policy.

Amendment 349 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. ‘illegal stay’ means the presence on 2. ‘irregular stay’ means the presence the territory of a Member State, of a third- on the territory of a Member State, of a country national who does not fulfil, or no third-country national who does not fulfil, longer fulfils the conditions of entry as set or no longer fulfils the conditions of entry out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) as set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 or other conditions for entry, stay 2016/399 or other conditions for entry, stay or residence in that Member State; or residence in that Member State;

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 350 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. ‘return’ means the process of a 3. ‘return’ means the process of a third-country national going back — third-country national going back — whether in voluntary compliance with an whether in voluntary compliance with an obligation to return, or enforced — to: obligation to return, or enforced — to his or her country of origin.

PE658.738v01-00 148/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 47.

Amendment 351 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) his or her country of origin, or deleted

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 47.

Amendment 352 Sylvie Guillaume

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) a country of transit in accordance deleted with Union or bilateral readmission agreements or other arrangements, or

Or. en

Justification

Under international law, return to a transit country is acceptable if that country offers safety, effective access to asylum procedures and protection from a further removal. In contrast, EU readmission agreements do not contain any mechanism to ensure that the readmitted person has an access to asylum procedure. Hence, return under Article 3(b) of the Return Directive may result in chain refoulement, putting the person at risk of serious violations of his or her fundamental rights. In addition, in line with the UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion 15, people can be returned to a transit country if they have a connection or close links to that country. According to the UNHCR, such meaningful links include family or other close ties,

AM\1214327EN.docx 149/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN between the person concerned and a country and the mere transit through the third country would not constitute such a link. Such level of connection is missing in the EU readmission agreements.

Amendment 353 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) a country of transit in accordance deleted with Union or bilateral readmission agreements or other arrangements, or

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 47.

Amendment 354 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) a country of transit in accordance (b) a country of transit in accordance with Union or bilateral readmission with Union or bilateral readmission agreements or other arrangements, or agreements or other applicable arrangements, or

Or. en

Justification

Apart from Union or bilateral readmission agreements, there are several forms of arrangements that are applicable to the return of illegally staying third-country nationals. Linked to recital 36, it is important, especially but not exclusively with regards to detention grounds, that arrangements are applicable to the person involved in the return process.

PE658.738v01-00 150/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 355 Pietro Bartolo

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) a country of transit in accordance (b) a country of transit in accordance with Union or bilateral readmission with Union, agreements or other arrangements, or

Or. it

Justification

In order to ensure parliamentary and democratic oversight, cooperation with countries of transit should be based on formal agreements, rather than on informal arrangements. In order to ensure parliamentary and democratic oversight, cooperation with countries of transit should be based on formal agreements, rather than on informal arrangements. The amendment is linked to the rapporteur’s amendment to recital 47.

Amendment 356 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) another third country, to which the deleted third-country national concerned voluntarily decides to return and in which he or she will be accepted;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 47.

Amendment 357 Monika Hohlmeier

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c

AM\1214327EN.docx 151/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) another third country, to which the (c) any third country, in which the third-country national concerned third-country national will be accepted and voluntarily decides to return and in which where there is no risk of breaching the he or she will be accepted; principle of non-refoulement.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is necessary because practise has shown that the Return Directive is not applicable any more without using this extension of countries to which returns can be executed. The internal logic and functionality of this text is endangered without our suggested change. Implementing our amendment is the basis to ensure the application of the rule of law.

Amendment 358 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) another third country, to which the (c) another third country, to which the third-country national concerned third-country national concerned can voluntarily decides to return and in which legally return and in which he or she will he or she will be accepted; be accepted;

Or. en

Justification

Voluntary return is the most preferred option, however, if the third country national does not return voluntarily the possibility for forced removal should be available. The provisions on voluntary and forced return have been changed in the EC proposal. It is important in both voluntary and forced return to make sure that the travel is legal; this safeguard seems to be absent.

Amendment 359 Malik Azmani, Olivier Chastel, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c

PE658.738v01-00 152/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) another third country, to which the (c) another third country, to which the third-country national concerned third-country national concerned can voluntarily decides to return and in which safely return and in which he or she will be he or she will be accepted; accepted;

Or. en

Justification

Voluntary returns prove to be most sustainable. Amendments to this recast will provide more opportunities to maximize the effect and sustainability of voluntary returns. But there are instances where a third-country national does not leave voluntarily. Member States should not be limited in their removal options in enforcing a return decision.

Amendment 360 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(ca) a third country where the third- country national has a right to enter and reside;

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment follows directly from recital 8 and Amendment 5, of which it is the logical consequence.

Amendment 361 Balázs Hidvéghi

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(ca) another third country in which he or she will be accepted;

AM\1214327EN.docx 153/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Or. en

Justification

As the effectiveness of returns is currently very low, as a last resort (especially when the returnee does not cooperate), it should be possible to return illegally staying third country nationals to any third country which will accept them. This amendment follows from recital 12 and Article 7 relating to the obligations to cooperate of returnees as it would also include in the definition of return another possibility which is closely linked to the lack of cooperation.

Amendment 362 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(cb) as a last resort, if the return to a third country referred to in points (a) to (d) cannot be enforced due to lack of cooperation in the return process by either the third country or the third- country national, any third country with which there is an EU or bilateral agreement on the basis of which the third- country national is accepted, and is allowed to remain, where international human rights standards according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are respected, and provided that no international, European or national rules prevent the return. When the return is carried out to a third country, which has a common border with a Member State, the prior agreement of that Member State is required before starting negotiations on any such bilateral agreement. 

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment follows directly from recital 8 and Amendment 5, of which it is the logical consequence.

PE658.738v01-00 154/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 363 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. ‘return decision’ means an 4. ‘return decision’ means an administrative or judicial decision or act, administrative or judicial decision or act, stating or declaring the stay of a third- stating or declaring the stay of a third- country national to be illegal and imposing country national to be irregular and or stating an obligation to return; imposing or stating an obligation to return;

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 364 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6. ‘entry ban’ means an administrative 6. ‘entry ban’ means an administrative or judicial decision or act prohibiting entry or judicial decision or act prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of the into and stay on the territory of the Member States for a specified period, Member States for a specified period; accompanying a return decision;

Or. fr

Justification

For consistency, particularly with recital 25. An entry ban is not necessarily accompanied by a return decision.

AM\1214327EN.docx 155/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 365 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the 7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of reasons in an individual case proven existence of specific reasons in an which are based on objective criteria individual case which are based on defined by law to believe that a third- objective and specific criteria strictly country national who is the subject of defined by law to believe that a third- return procedures may abscond; country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled on Article 6 on the risk of absconding. This proposed definition is more precise, will lead to legal certainty and is in line with the Parliament's position on other files, such as in the CEAS.

Amendment 366 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the 7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of reasons in an individual case proven existence of reasons in an which are based on objective criteria individual case which are based on specific defined by law to believe that a third- and objective criteria strictly defined by country national who is the subject of law to believe that a third-country national return procedures may abscond; who is the subject of return procedures may abscond;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the deletion amendment table to Article 6 on the risk of absconding.

PE658.738v01-00 156/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 367 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the 7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of reasons in an individual case existence of reasons in an individual case which are based on objective criteria which are based on objective criteria defined by law to believe that a third- defined by this Directive to believe that a country national who is the subject of third-country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond; return procedures may abscond;

Or. it

Justification

This amendment is needed because it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 6 of this Directive.

Amendment 368 Monika Hohlmeier

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the 7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of reasons in an individual case existence of clear indicators in an which are based on objective criteria individual case which are based on defined by law to believe that a third- objective criteria defined by law to believe country national who is the subject of that a third-country national who is the return procedures may abscond; subject of return procedures may abscond;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is necessary as it relates to the internal logic of the text in particular to Article (6) on the risk of absconding by providing a more precise definition.

AM\1214327EN.docx 157/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 369 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the 7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of reasons in an individual case existence of reasons in an individual case which are based on objective criteria which are based on objective criteria to defined by law to believe that a third- believe that a third-country national who is country national who is the subject of the subject of return procedures may return procedures may abscond; abscond;

Or. nl

Justification

The law cannot foresee all objective criteria.

Amendment 370 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

8. ‘voluntary departure’ means 8. ‘voluntary departure’ means compliance with the obligation to return compliance with the obligation to return at within the time-limit fixed for that any stage of the return procedure, as a purpose in the return decision; consequence of an informed decision, taken freely by the person concerned in the absence of any physical, psychological, or material pressure to return voluntarily or to enrol in Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration programme;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it inextricably linked to amendments tabled in recital 14 and Article 9 relating to voluntary departure.

PE658.738v01-00 158/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 371 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

9. ‘vulnerable persons’ means 9. ‘persons in a vulnerable situation’ minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled means persons facing a diminished people, elderly people, pregnant women, capacity to resist, cope with, or recover single parents with minor children and from violence, exploitation, abuse or persons who have been subjected to violations of their rights due to the torture, rape or other serious forms of presence of factors and circumstances at psychological, physical or sexual violence. the individual, community, household, structural and/or situational level that increase the risk of, and exposure to, such violence, exploitation, abuse, or rights violation or due to the absence of factors that protect against such violence, exploitation, abuse and rights violations.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment to Recital 4.

Amendment 372 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Hilde Vautmans, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

9. ‘vulnerable persons’ means minors, 9. ‘vulnerable persons’ means minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children and persons parents with minor children, lesbian, gay, who have been subjected to torture, rape or bisexual, trans and intersex persons, other serious forms of psychological, persons belonging to religious minorities, physical or sexual violence. non-believers, and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual and gender based violence.

AM\1214327EN.docx 159/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment on Article 14 on the return management system to include specific attention for vulnerable persons. This amendment will widen the scope of this definition to persons that can be found to be in serious situations of vulnerability, and this amendment is also in line with the Parliament's position in other files, such as in the CEAS.

Amendment 373 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

9a. 10. ‘other authorisation offering a right to stay’ means any document issued by a Member State to a third-country national authorising them to stay on its territory, which is not a residence permit within the meaning of Article 2(16) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 or a long-stay visa within the meaning of Article 2(14) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 (SIS Regulation on returns), except for the document referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2013/33/EU.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment follows directly from recital 8 and Amendment 5, of which it is the logical consequence.

Amendment 374 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 160/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN 1. This Directive shall be without 1. This Directive shall be without prejudice to more favourable provisions prejudice to provisions of: of:

Or. nl

Justification

Stricter, tailor-made bilateral agreements should not be ruled out.

Amendment 375 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. This Directive shall be without deleted prejudice to any provision which may be more favourable for the third-country national, laid down in the Union acquis relating to immigration and asylum.

Or. nl

Justification

In view of the way the asylum crisis is increasingly going off the rails, a standstill obligation cannot be accepted. This paragraph should be deleted because it runs counter to the general objective set out in recital 3 concerning the need to achieve effective return.

Amendment 376 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. This Directive shall be without 3. This Directive shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States prejudice to the right of the Member States to adopt or maintain provisions that are to adopt or maintain provisions that are more favourable to persons to whom it more favourable or more stringent to applies provided that such provisions are persons to whom it applies provided that such provisions are compatible with this

AM\1214327EN.docx 161/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN compatible with this Directive. Directive.

Or. nl

Justification

Member States should preserve sovereignty, taking into account their specific socio-economic circumstances. They may have to be stricter than the European minimum standard. The amendment emphasises that Member States remain sovereign, as stated in recital 4.

Amendment 377 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. With regard to third-country deleted nationals excluded from the scope of this Directive in accordance with Article 2(2)(a), Member States shall: (a) ensure that their treatment and level of protection are no less favourable than as set out in Article 10(4) and (5) (limitations on use of coercive measures), Article 11(2)(a) (postponement of removal), Article 17(1)(b) and (d) (emergency health care and taking into account needs of vulnerable persons), and Articles 19 and 20 (detention conditions) and (b) respect the principle of non- refoulement.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 22 on the border procedure.

Amendment 378 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Fabienne Keller

PE658.738v01-00 162/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) ensure that their treatment and level (a) ensure that their treatment and level of protection are no less favourable than as of protection are no less favourable than as set out in Article 10(4) and (5) (limitations set out in Article 10(4) and (5) (limitations on use of coercive measures), Article on use of coercive measures), 11(2)(a) (postponement of removal), Article11(2)(a) (postponement of removal), Article 17(1)(b) and (d) (emergency health Article 12 (return and removal of care and taking into account needs of children), Article 15 (form), Article 16 vulnerable persons), and Articles 19 and 20 (remedies), Article 17 (safeguards (detention conditions) and pending return)14(1)(b) and (d) (emergency health care and taking into account needs of vulnerable persons), Article 18 (detention) and Articles 19 and 20(detention conditions) and

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendments tabled to Article 22 on the border procedure. Although Art. 2(2)(a) foresees the possibility to exclude certain categories of third country nationals from the scope of this Directive, this should not lead to lowering of the applicable standards.

Amendment 379 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) ensure that their treatment and level (a) ensure that their treatment and level of protection are no less favourable than as of protection are no less favourable than as set out in Article 10(4) and (5) (limitations set out in Article 10(4) and (5) (limitations on use of coercive measures), Article on use of coercive measures), Article 11(2)(a) (postponement of removal), 11(2)(a) (postponement of removal), Article 17(1)(b) and (d) (emergency health Article 12 (consideration of best interest care and taking into account needs of of the child and return to caregiver or vulnerable persons), and Articles 19 and 20 adequate reception facilities), Article (detention conditions) and 17(1)(b) and (d) (emergency health care and taking into account needs of vulnerable persons), and Articles 19 and 20 (detention

AM\1214327EN.docx 163/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN conditions) and

Or. en

Justification

It is important to clarify that the decision by a Member State to derogate on the basis of Article 2(2)(a) still respects certain legal obligations including those under Article 12 concerning unaccompanied minors. The Parliament always emphasizes the importance of the right of the child especially in situations where children are returned. It is important that the article 2(2)(a) derogation provide for less favourable treatment.

Amendment 380 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) respect the principle of non- deleted refoulement.

Or. fr

Justification

Amendment 381 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Michal Šimečka, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) respect the principle of non- (b) respect the principle of non- refoulement. refoulement, best interest of the child, family life and state of health (Article 5)

PE658.738v01-00 164/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Or. en

Justification

Amendment 382 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 5 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5 Non-refoulement, best interests of 5 Best interests of the child, family the child, family life and state of health life and state of health

Or. fr

Justification

Amendment 383 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Hilde Vautmans, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Olivier Chastel, Michal Šimečka, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) the best interests of the child; (a) the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in all decisions concerning minors;

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 165/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 14 on the return management system, in which due attention should be given to vulnerable persons, including minors.

Amendment 384 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(ca) the special needs of persons with disabilities, elderly persons, pregnant women, victims of trafficking in human beings, persons with serious illnesses, persons with mental disorders and persons who have been subject to torture, rape, or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, such as victims of female genital mutilation.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Recital 38 and Article 14.

Amendment 385 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c a) the rights of their own population

Or. nl

PE658.738v01-00 166/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

Asylum policy must protect not only the asylum seeker, but also a country’s own population. This amendment is based on recital 4 and amendment 2 for recital 4, referring to Article 15 of the ECHR.

Amendment 386 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment and respect the principle of non- deleted refoulement.

Or. fr

Justification

Amendment 387 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 6 deleted Risk of absconding 1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least the following criteria: (a) lack of documentation proving the identity; (b) lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;

AM\1214327EN.docx 167/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN (c) lack of financial resources; (d) illegal entry into the territory of the Member States; (e) unauthorised movement to the territory of another Member State; (f) explicit expression of intent of non- compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Directive; (g) being subject of a return decision issued by another Member State; (h) non-compliance with a return decision, including with an obligation to return within the period for voluntary departure; (i) non-compliance with the requirement of Article 8(2) to go immediately to the territory of another Member State that granted a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay; (j) not fulfilling the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures, referred to in Article 7; (k) existence of conviction for a criminal offence, including for a serious criminal offence in another Member State; (l) ongoing criminal investigations and proceedings; (m) using false or forged identity documents, destroying or otherwise disposing of existing documents, or refusing to provide fingerprints as required by Union or national law; (n) opposing violently or fraudulently the return procedures; (o) not complying with a measure aimed at preventing the risk of absconding referred to in Article 9(3); (p) not complying with an existing entry ban. 2. The existence of a risk of absconding

PE658.738v01-00 168/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account the objective criteria referred to in paragraph 1. However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. en

Amendment 388 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph -1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

-1. The existence of a risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances and the future behaviour that can be reasonably expected in the individual case, taking into account the following objective criteria

Or. en

Amendment 389 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The objective criteria referred to in deleted point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least

AM\1214327EN.docx 169/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN the following criteria: (a) lack of documentation proving the identity; (b) lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address; (c) lack of financial resources; (d) illegal entry into the territory of the Member States; (e) unauthorised movement to the territory of another Member State; (f) explicit expression of intent of non- compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Directive; (g) being subject of a return decision issued by another Member State; (h) non-compliance with a return decision, including with an obligation to return within the period for voluntary departure; (i) non-compliance with the requirement of Article 8(2) to go immediately to the territory of another Member State that granted a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay; (j) not fulfilling the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures, referred to in Article 7; (k) existence of conviction for a criminal offence, including for a serious criminal offence in another Member State; (l) ongoing criminal investigations and proceedings; (m) using false or forged identity documents, destroying or otherwise disposing of existing documents, or refusing to provide fingerprints as required by Union or national law; (n) opposing violently or fraudulently the return procedures; (o) not complying with a measure aimed at preventing the risk of absconding

PE658.738v01-00 170/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN referred to in Article 9(3); (p) not complying with an existing entry ban.

Or. en

Amendment 390 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The objective criteria referred to in 1. The existence of a risk of point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least absconding shall be determined on the the following criteria: basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account objective criteria, which shall include at least the following criteria:

Or. en

Amendment 391 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod, Annalisa Tardino

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The objective criteria referred to in 1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least point 7 of Article 3 shall include the the following criteria: following criteria and any other criterion deemed useful by Member States:

Or. fr

Amendment 392 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Birgit Sippel, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

AM\1214327EN.docx 171/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The objective criteria referred to in 1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least point 7 of Article 3 shall exclusively the following criteria: include the following criteria:

Or. en

Amendment 393 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The objective criteria referred to in 1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least point 7 of Article 3 may only include the the following criteria: following criteria:

Or. en

Justification

The Commission proposal listed a number of objective criteria that were so broad that virtually all irregular third country nationals would be covered by it. On top, the proposed list was non-exhaustive. This would have a very serious effect due to the link between the risk of absconding and detention, as well as for limiting the options for voluntary departure. This would entail serious costs, as the EP impact assessment underlined, both for the third country nationals as well as for Member States. It would be better to provide legal certainty and harmonisation across the Union on the risk of absconding and introduce an exhaustive list of objective criteria here. The criteria should be precise and actually constitute a link with the risk of absconding.

Amendment 394 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

PE658.738v01-00 172/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. The objective criteria referred to in 1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least point 7 of Article 3 are as follows: the following criteria:

Or. it

Amendment 395 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) lack of documentation proving the deleted identity;

Or. it

Amendment 396 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) lack of documentation proving the deleted identity;

Or. en

Amendment 397 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 173/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN (a) lack of documentation proving the deleted identity;

Or. en

Justification

Many asylum applicants and other third country nationals may not always be able to provide such documentation. For instance, such documents may have been lost or taken from them. This in itself is no objective criterion to expect a risk of absconding. It is not a criterion that helps establish future behaviour.

Amendment 398 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) lack of residence, fixed abode or deleted reliable address;

Or. en

Justification

The absence of such residence, fixed abode or “reliable” address can often be the case, thus exposing a potentially large number of individuals to detention, and homelessness is as such no reliable criterion for the future risk of absconding.

Amendment 399 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) lack of residence, fixed abode or deleted reliable address;

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 174/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 400 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. it

Amendment 401 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 402 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

It is unclear how a lack of financial resources is a reliable criterion for the future risk of absconding. In fact, financial resources are often exactly needed to abscond.

AM\1214327EN.docx 175/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 403 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(d) illegal entry into the territory of deleted the Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 404 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(d) illegal entry into the territory of deleted the Member States;

Or. en

Justification

Depending on Member States’ interpretation, this could cover virtually all asylum-seekers arriving at the external borders. It would thus potentially allow for the detention of large groups of asylum-seekers. Moreover, such entry in past is no reliable criterion for the future risk of absconding

Amendment 405 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(d) illegal entry into the territory of deleted the Member States;

PE658.738v01-00 176/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Or. it

Amendment 406 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(d) illegal entry into the territory of the (d) illegal entry into the territory of the Member States; Member States or apprehension or interception relating to the irregular crossing by land, sea or air of the external border of a Member State;

Or. fr

Amendment 407 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(e) unauthorised movement to the deleted territory of another Member State;

Or. en

Amendment 408 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(e) unauthorised movement to the (e) unauthorised movement to the territory of another Member State; territory of another Member State, including movement after transit through a third country or attempts to do so;

AM\1214327EN.docx 177/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Or. fr

Amendment 409 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(f) explicit expression of intent of non- (f) explicit expression of intent of non- compliance with return-related measures compliance with all return-related applied by virtue of this Directive; measures applied by virtue of this Directive or actions clearly demonstrating an intent not to comply with all of these measures;

Or. fr

Amendment 410 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(g) being subject of a return decision deleted issued by another Member State;

Or. it

Amendment 411 Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Beata Kempa, Patryk Jaki

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(g) being subject of a return decision (g) being subject of a return decision issued by another Member State; issued by another Member State, if consent for transit has not been given pursuant to

PE658.738v01-00 178/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Article 9(5)

Or. pl

Justification

This recital is supplemented in line with amendments tabled to Article 9(5).

Amendment 412 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(i) non-compliance with the deleted requirement of Article 8(2) to go immediately to the territory of another Member State that granted a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay;

Or. it

Amendment 413 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(i) non-compliance with the (i) non-compliance with the requirement of Article 8(2) to go requirement of Article 8(2) to go to the immediately to the territory of another territory of another Member State that Member State that granted a valid granted a valid residence permit or other residence permit or other authorisation authorisation offering a right to stay; offering a right to stay;

Or. en

Amendment 414

AM\1214327EN.docx 179/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point j

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(j) not fulfilling the obligation to deleted cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures, referred to in Article 7;

Or. en

Amendment 415 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point j

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(j) not fulfilling the obligation to deleted cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures, referred to in Article 7;

Or. it

Amendment 416 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(k) existence of conviction for a (k) existence of conviction for a criminal offence, including for a serious criminal offence, including for a serious criminal offence in another Member State; criminal offence in another Member State, where the sentence has not been fully served;

Or. it

PE658.738v01-00 180/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 417 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(k) existence of conviction for a (k) existence of conviction for a serious criminal offence, including for a serious criminal offence in a Member State; criminal offence in another Member State;

Or. en

Justification

The conviction of any criminal offence, including minor ones, as such is no reliable objective factor to establish the future risk of absconding. However the conviction of serious criminal offence may be. This should not just be the case for such convictions in other Member States but in all Member States.

Amendment 418 Nadine Morano (PPE)

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(k) existence of conviction for a (k) existence of a prior conviction for a criminal offence, including for a serious criminal offence, including in another criminal offence in another Member State; Member State;

Or. fr

Amendment 419 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point l

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 181/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN (l) ongoing criminal investigations deleted and proceedings;

Or. en

Justification

Ongoing criminal investigations and proceedings may be a legitimate ground for imposing restrictions or even detention. However, this is not a matter to be legislated on in this Directive. There are sufficient grounds under national criminal law to impose restrictions or detention in such cases.

Amendment 420 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point m

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(m) using false or forged identity deleted documents, destroying or otherwise disposing of existing documents, or refusing to provide fingerprints as required by Union or national law;

Or. en

Amendment 421 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point m

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(m) using false or forged identity (m) using false or forged identity or documents, destroying or otherwise travel documents, residence permits or disposing of existing documents, or visas, or documents setting out the refusing to provide fingerprints as required conditions of entry, destroying or by Union or national law; otherwise disposing of such documents, using pseudonyms with fraudulent intent, communicating other false information orally or in writing, refusing to provide biometric data as required by Union or

PE658.738v01-00 182/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN national law;

Or. fr

Amendment 422 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point m

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(m) using false or forged identity (m) destroying or otherwise disposing documents, destroying or otherwise of existing documents, or refusing to disposing of existing documents, or provide fingerprints as required by Union refusing to provide fingerprints as required or national law; by Union or national law;

Or. en

Justification

The use of false or forged identity documents as such is no reliable objective factor to establish the future risk of absconding. In addition, many asylum seekers have no alternative to the use of false or forged identity documents to escape their country of origin. However, the intentional act of destroying or disposing of such documents may be an objective factor to establish the future risk of absconding.

Amendment 423 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point n

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(n) opposing violently or fraudulently deleted the return procedures;

Or. en

Amendment 424

AM\1214327EN.docx 183/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point o

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(o) not complying with a measure deleted aimed at preventing the risk of absconding referred to in Article 9(3);

Or. en

Amendment 425 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point p

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(p) not complying with an existing deleted entry ban.

Or. it

Amendment 426 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point p

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(p) not complying with an existing deleted entry ban.

Or. en

Amendment 427 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive

PE658.738v01-00 184/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point p

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(p) not complying with an existing (p) not complying with a valid entry entry ban. ban.

Or. fr

Amendment 428 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point p a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(pa) risk to public order, public security or national security.

Or. fr

Amendment 429 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1a. Member States may lay down additional objective criteria in their national legislation.

Or. fr

Amendment 430 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 185/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN 2. The existence of a risk of deleted absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account the objective criteria referred to in paragraph 1. However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. en

Amendment 431 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The existence of a risk of absconding shall The existence of a risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account the the individual case, taking into account the objective criteria referred to in paragraph objective criteria referred to in paragraphs 1. 1 and 1a.

Or. fr

Amendment 432 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

However, Member States shall establish deleted that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective

PE658.738v01-00 186/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN criteria referred to in points (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. en

Justification

This proposal departs from the principle that there should always be an individual assessment of the risk of absconding, by inserting an automatic presumption of the risk of absconding for certain grounds.

Amendment 433 Isabel Santos

Proposal for a directive Article 6.º – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

However, Member States shall establish Deleted that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. pt

Amendment 434 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

However, Member States shall establish However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (m), (n), (o) and (p) of to in points (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (k), (l), paragraph 1 is fulfilled. (m), (n), (o), (p) and (q) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. fr

AM\1214327EN.docx 187/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 435 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

However, Member States shall establish Member States shall establish that a risk of that a risk of absconding is presumed in an absconding is presumed in an individual individual case, unless proven otherwise, case, unless proven otherwise, when one of when one of the objective criteria referred the objective criteria referred to in points to in points (m), (n), (o) and (p) of (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n), (o) and (p) paragraph 1 is fulfilled. of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. en

Amendment 436 Malik Azmani, Olivier Chastel, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

However, Member States shall establish However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (m), (n), (o) and (p) of to in points (k) (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled. paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

Or. en

Justification

A third-country national convicted e.g. for a serious criminal offence in another Member State has in itself demonstrated to move between Member States.

Amendment 437 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

PE658.738v01-00 188/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

However, Member States shall establish However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (m), (n), (o) and (p) of to in points (m), (n) and (o) of paragraph 1 paragraph 1 is fulfilled. is fulfilled.

Or. it

Amendment 438 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

7 Obligation to cooperate 7 Obligation to cooperate on the part of third-country nationals

Or. fr

Amendment 439 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Obligation to cooperate Information and cooperation

Or. en

Amendment 440 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – title

AM\1214327EN.docx 189/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Obligation to cooperate Provision of information

Or. en

Amendment 441 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Obligation to cooperate Cooperation

Or. en

Amendment 442 Malik Azmani, Olivier Chastel, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Member States shall impose on 1. Member States shall impose on third-country nationals the obligation to third-country nationals the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. That obligation shall return procedures, unless the third-country include the following in particular: national can substantiate that they will leave without assistance. That obligation shall include the following in particular:

Or. en

Amendment 443 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

PE658.738v01-00 190/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 444 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Member States shall impose on 1. Member States shall inform third- third-country nationals the obligation to country nationals in the process of return, cooperate with the competent authorities in a language which they understand, in a of the Member States at all stages of the concise, transparent, intelligible and return procedures. That obligation shall easily accessible form, using clear and include the following in particular: plain language, of the stages of the return procedures. The information provided shall include the following in particular:

Or. en

Amendment 445 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Member States shall impose on 1. Member States shall facilitate the third-country nationals the obligation to cooperation between third-country cooperate with the competent authorities of nationals and the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the the Member States at all stages of the

AM\1214327EN.docx 191/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN return procedures. That obligation shall return procedures. All information on the include the following in particular: procedure shall be given to the third country nationals in a language which they understand.

Or. en

Amendment 446 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Member States shall impose on 1. Member States shall take measures third-country nationals the obligation to that facilitate that the competent cooperate with the competent authorities of authorities and the third country national the Member States at all stages of the to mutually cooperate and provide return procedures. That obligation shall information. include the following in particular:

Or. en

Justification

This amendment acknowledges the importance of mutual provision of information and cooperation during the return procedure. It is thus more balanced than the Commission proposal, which only put duties on the third country national. Mutual information provision and cooperation is crucial for trust building in the return process, making it more efficient and effective, as well as being able to take into account the specific circumstances of the third country national.

Amendment 447 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) the duty to provide all the elements deleted that are necessary for establishing or

PE658.738v01-00 192/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN verifying identity;

Or. en

Justification

Justification: this element is now reflected in a new and more balanced amendment on Article 7(2).

Amendment 448 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod, Annalisa Tardino

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) the duty to provide all the elements (a) the duty to provide all the elements that are necessary for establishing or that are necessary for establishing or verifying identity; verifying identity, including age through bone or dental tests;

Or. fr

Amendment 449 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. fr

Amendment 450 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

AM\1214327EN.docx 193/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) the duty to provide all the elements (a) Third country nationals cooperate that are necessary for establishing or to provide all the elements that are verifying identity; necessary for establishing or verifying identity;

Or. en

Amendment 451 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) the duty to provide all the elements (a) an overview and explanation of the that are necessary for establishing or different stages of the return procedure; verifying identity;

Or. en

Amendment 452 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) the duty to provide information on deleted the third countries transited;

Or. en

Amendment 453 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive

PE658.738v01-00 194/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) the duty to provide information on deleted the third countries transited;

Or. en

Amendment 454 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) the duty to provide information on deleted the third countries transited;

Or. en

Justification

Justification: this element is now reflected in a new and more balanced amendment on Article 7(2).

Amendment 455 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) the duty to provide information on deleted the third countries transited;

Or. it

Amendment 456 Maria Grapini

AM\1214327EN.docx 195/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) the duty to provide information on (b) the duty to provide information on the third countries transited; the third countries transited and on the contact people or guides;

Or. ro

Amendment 457 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Justification: this element is now reflected in a new and more balanced amendment on Article 7(2).

Amendment 458 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 459

PE658.738v01-00 196/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) the duty to remain present and (c) the duty to provide a reliable available throughout the procedures; address to the competent authorities, in the form and within the time frame established by national law, and to remain present and available throughout the procedures;

Or. fr

Amendment 460 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) the duty to remain present and (c) Third country nationals remain available throughout the procedures; available throughout the procedures;

Or. en

Amendment 461 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(ca) knowledge of the consequences of not complying with an obligation to return following a return decision;

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 197/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 462 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(cb) knowledge of the time-frame of the procedure, including any time limits which the competent authorities are required to respect, including the time limits for detention;

Or. en

Amendment 463 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(d) the duty to lodge to the competent deleted authorities of third countries a request for obtaining a valid travel document.

Or. en

Justification

Justification: this element is now reflected in a new and more balanced amendment on Article 7(2).

Amendment 464 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(d) the duty to lodge to the competent deleted authorities of third countries a request for

PE658.738v01-00 198/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN obtaining a valid travel document.

Or. en

Amendment 465 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(d) the duty to lodge to the competent deleted authorities of third countries a request for obtaining a valid travel document.

Or. en

Amendment 466 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(d) the duty to lodge to the competent (d) the duty to lodge to the competent authorities of third countries a request for authorities of third countries a request for obtaining a valid travel document. obtaining a valid travel document, to provide all information and statements necessary to obtain such a document, and to cooperate with these authorities.

Or. fr

Amendment 467 Malik Azmani, Olivier Chastel, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 199/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN (d) the duty to lodge to the competent (d) the duty to lodge to the competent authorities of third countries a request for authorities of third countries a request for obtaining a valid travel document. obtaining a valid travel document, and fulfil requirements with regard to his or her medical condition as required by the country of origin;

Or. en

Amendment 468 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(d) the duty to lodge to the competent (d) the duty to lodge to the competent authorities of third countries a request for authorities of third countries a request for obtaining a valid travel document. obtaining a valid travel document and fulfil requirements with regard to his or her medical condition as required by the country of origin;

Or. en

Amendment 469 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(da) a clear overview of the rights and obligations during the procedure, including the right to an effective remedy, to appeal against or seek review of decisions related to return or detention as referred to in Articles 15 and 18a and the right to free legal assistance and interpretation;

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 200/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 470 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(da) the duty to appear in person, if and where required for that purpose, before the competent national and third-country authorities.

Or. fr

Amendment 471 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(db) knowledge of the outcome of decisions related to return or detention as referred to in Articles 15 and 18, the reasons for that decision, and the elements taken into consideration for the purposes of the decision as well as the deadlines and manner in which such a decision may be challenged.

Or. en

Amendment 472 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. The elements referred to in point deleted (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third-

AM\1214327EN.docx 201/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession regarding the identity, nationality or nationalities, age, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation.

Or. en

Amendment 473 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. The elements referred to in point deleted (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third- country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession regarding the identity, nationality or nationalities, age, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation.

Or. en

Amendment 474 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. The elements referred to in point 2. (1) The third country national (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third- shall, to the best of his/her knowledge and country nationals’ statements and capabilities, inform the competent documentation in their possession authorities on the elements necessary to regarding the identity, nationality or establish or verify his/her identity, nationalities, age, country or countries and including, where available, documentation place or places of previous residence, regarding nationality or nationalities, age, travel routes and travel documentation. country or countries and place or places of

PE658.738v01-00 202/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation. The third country national shall also remain present and available throughout the procedure and shall, to the extent possible and where not jeopardising his or her rights or safety, cooperate with lodging a request for obtaining a valid travel document with the competent authorities of third countries.

Or. en

Amendment 475 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod, Annalisa Tardino

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. The elements referred to in point 2. The elements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third- (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third- country nationals’ statements and country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession documentation in their possession regarding the identity, nationality or regarding the identity, nationality or nationalities, age, country or countries and nationalities, age and means of verifying place or places of previous residence, the declared age through a bone or dental travel routes and travel documentation. 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.

Or. fr

Amendment 476 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. The elements referred to in point 2. The elements referred to in point

AM\1214327EN.docx 203/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third- (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third- country nationals’ statements and country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession documentation in their possession regarding the identity, nationality or regarding the identity, place and date of nationalities, age, country or countries and birth, nationality or nationalities, country place or places of previous residence, or countries and place or places of previous travel routes and travel documentation. residence, travel routes and travel documentation, and biometric data.

Or. fr

Amendment 477 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Member States shall inform the deleted third-country nationals about the consequences of not complying with the obligation referred to in paragraph 1.

Or. en

Amendment 478 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Dragoş Tudorache, Olivier Chastel, Maite Pagazaurtundúa

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Member States shall inform the 3. Member States shall inform the third-country nationals about the third-country nationals in writing in a consequences of not complying with the concise, transparent, intelligible and obligation referred to in paragraph 1. easily accessible form, using clear and plain language on the basis of a standard template which shall be developed by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, and in a language that the applicant understands. Where necessary, this information shall, in addition, be

PE658.738v01-00 204/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN supplied orally and in a visual form through videos or pictograms, and shall take into account the individual circumstances, especially for vulnerable persons. This information shall include, at least, a clear overview of the return procedure, the rights and obligations during the procedure, the consequences of not complying with an obligation to return following a return decision, and the contacts of non-governmental and international organisations that can provide advice, and the options for sustainable returns, such as support and reintegration measures.

Or. en

Justification

This lays down more precise elements and formats of information to be provided, also in line with EP positions on information provision in the CEAS and as already partially agreed in trilogues.

Amendment 479 Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Hilde Vautmans

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Member States shall inform the 3. Member States shall inform the third-country nationals about the third-country nationals about the consequences of not complying with the consequences of not complying with the obligation referred to in paragraph 1. obligation referred to in paragraph 1. When children, information shall be provided in a child-friendly manner and in a language they understand, in the presence of child protection officers, or the guardian.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 205/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Justification

In order to ensure that the best interests of the child are always the primary consideration, a guardian for separated and unaccompanied children should be appointed. This amendment is based on the FRA Handbook on Guardianship for children deprived of parental care, p.26 et seq.

Amendment 480 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Member States shall inform the 3. Member States shall inform the third-country nationals about the third-country nationals about the consequences of not complying with the consequences of not complying with the obligation referred to in paragraph 1. obligation referred to in paragraph 1. Member States shall lay down the procedures for providing such information.

Or. fr

Amendment 481 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3a. All the information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided in good time to enable the third-country national to exercise the rights guaranteed under this Directive. The information shall be provided both orally and in writing. In the case of minors, information shall be provided in a child-friendly manner by staff appropriately trained also in Union and international human rights law, as well as Union and international refugee law, and with the involvement of the

PE658.738v01-00 206/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN family members or of the guardian.

Or. en

Amendment 482 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 3 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3b. Member States shall make available general information sheets explaining the main elements of the return procedure, imparted both orally and in writing.

Or. en

Amendment 483 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 3 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3c. Member States shall make available to the third-country national the assistance of a case-worker to assist him or her during the procedure in line with Article 14.

Or. en

Amendment 484 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 3 d (new)

AM\1214327EN.docx 207/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3d. Member States shall provide third- country nationals in the process of return with the opportunity to communicate with the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and with the contact details of organisations providing legal advice or counselling. Legal advice and counselling should be provided systematically and in all stages of the procedure, including as legal remedies are concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 485 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 – paragraph 3 e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3e. Member States shall provide third- country nationals in the process of return access to health care and all other social services they need.

Or. en

Amendment 486 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 7 a The right to be heard Before the adoption of a return decision, the right to be heard shall be granted to the third country national, in particular to

PE658.738v01-00 208/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN consider: a) the regular or irregular stay of the third-country national; b) all circumstances affecting the obligation to issue a return decision under article 8 paragraph 2,3,4, 5; c) personal and family situation; d) the willingness to voluntary departure pursuant to the article 9; e) any other relevant detail in order to avoid the violation of fundamental rights, in particular the principle of non refoulement, the right to family life, as well as the best interests of the child.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment aims to introduce the right to be hears to the third country national subject to a return decision, as recognised by CJEU in the case C-249/13, Bouljlida and -82/16, K.A.

Amendment 487 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Chapter 2 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

TERMINATION OF ILLEGAL STAY TERMINATION OF IRREGULAR STAY

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 488 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

AM\1214327EN.docx 209/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Proposal for a directive Chapter 2 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

TERMINATION OF ILLEGAL STAY TERMINATION OF IRREGULAR STAY

Or. en

Amendment 489 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Member States shall issue a return 1. Member States shall, before issuing decision to any third-country national a return decision to any third-country staying illegally on their territory, without national staying irregularly on their prejudice to the exceptions referred to in territory, without prejudice to the paragraphs 2 to 5. exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5, always check if the status of the person could be regularised based on his or her existing ties to the Member State.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 490 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Member States shall issue a return 1. Member States shall issue a return decision to any third-country national decision and a detention order to any staying illegally on their territory, without third-country national staying illegally on prejudice to the exceptions referred to in their territory, without prejudice to the

PE658.738v01-00 210/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN paragraphs 2 to 5. exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.

Or. nl

Justification

A return decision without a detention order has remained a dead letter in the vast majority of cases today. It is this that makes European asylum policy fail. This amendment follows the recommendation in recital 28 not to obstruct the preparation of return.

Amendment 491 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Member States shall issue a return 1. Member States shall issue a return decision to any third-country national decision to any third-country national staying illegally on their territory, without staying irregularly on their territory, prejudice to the exceptions referred to in without prejudice to the exceptions referred paragraphs 2 to 5. to in paragraphs 2 to 5.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 492 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Third-country nationals staying deleted illegally on the territory of a Member State and holding a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay issued by another Member State shall

AM\1214327EN.docx 211/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN be required to go to the territory of that other Member State immediately. In the event of non-compliance by the third- country national concerned with this requirement, or where the third-country national’s immediate departure is required for reasons of public policy or national security, paragraph 1 shall apply.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 493 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Third-country nationals staying 2. Third-country nationals staying illegally on the territory of a Member State irregularly on the territory of a Member and holding a valid residence permit or State and holding a valid residence permit other authorisation offering a right to stay or other authorisation offering a right to issued by another Member State shall be stay issued by another Member State shall required to go to the territory of that other be required to go to the territory of that Member State immediately. In the event of other Member State immediately. In the non-compliance by the third-country event of non-compliance by the third- national concerned with this requirement, country national concerned with this or where the third-country national’s requirement, or where the third-country immediate departure is required for reasons national’s immediate departure is required of public policy or national security, for reasons of public policy or national paragraph 1 shall apply. security, paragraph 1 shall apply.

Or. en

Justification

PE658.738v01-00 212/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 494 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

In the event of non-compliance by the third-country national concerned with this requirement, paragraph 1 shall apply and the Member State that issued the return decision shall start a consultation in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1860. When the Member State that issued the residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay notifies to the Member State that issued the return decision that it is maintaining that permit or authorisation, or when it does not take a decision within the period set by letter (e) of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1860, that Member State shall be obliged to admit the third-country national into its territory.

Or. en

Justification

As the Regulation only establishes rules regarding the consultation between Member States, the Directive should establish the rule for the Member State to admit the third country national to its territory, which is the logical consequence of the procedure started under Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 in the cases where the valid residence permit or other authorisation were not withdrawn. As the IS return legislation was published on 28 November 2018, after the proposal on return by the Commission, it is important to link the two files as they both touch upon the issue of return and for legal consistency.

Amendment 495 Pietro Bartolo

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 213/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN 3. Member States may refrain from 3. Member States may refrain from issuing a return decision to a third-country issuing a return decision to a third-country national staying illegally on their territory national staying illegally on their territory if the third-country national concerned is if the third-country national concerned is taken back by another Member State under taken back by another Member State under bilateral arrangements or agreements agreements existing on 13 January 2009. A existing on 13 January 2009. In such a decision by a Member State not to adopt a case the Member State which has taken return decision pursuant to a bilateral back the third-country national concerned agreement must be issued in writing and shall apply paragraph 1. accompanied by an appropriate statement of reasons, and must take into account all the procedural and substantive guarantees laid down by this Directive and EU law. Such decisions must never prejudice access to the international protection procedure or the rights of minors.

Or. it

Justification

Only readmission agreements allow democratic and parliamentary oversight; any decision not to return an individual must comply with all the procedural and substantive guarantees and safeguard the principle of the best interests of minors. The amendment is linked to the amendments submitted to recitals 16 and 19 on return decisions and the possibility of appealing against them.

Amendment 496 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Member States may refrain from 3. Member States may refrain from issuing a return decision to a third-country issuing a return decision to a third-country national staying illegally on their territory national staying irregularly on their if the third-country national concerned is territory if the third-country national taken back by another Member State under concerned is taken back by another bilateral agreements or arrangements Member State under bilateral agreements existing on 13 January 2009 . In such a or arrangements existing on 13 January case the Member State which has taken 2009 . In such a case the Member State back the third-country national concerned which has taken back the third-country shall apply paragraph 1. national concerned shall apply paragraph 1.

PE658.738v01-00 214/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Or. en

Justification

Amendment 497 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Member States may at any moment deleted decide to grant an autonomous residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons to a third- country national staying illegally on their territory. In that event no return decision shall be issued. Where a return decision has already been issued, it shall be withdrawn or suspended for the duration of validity of the residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay.

Or. nl

Justification

The asylum procedure in itself provides sufficient guarantees that the individual situation of the third-country national is taken into account. This amendment is linked to recital 28, which already refers to an individual assessment.

Amendment 498 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 215/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN 4. Member States may at any moment 4. Member States shall always decide to grant an autonomous residence examine whether the person could be permit or other authorisation offering a granted an autonomous residence permit or right to stay for compassionate, other authorisation offering a right to stay humanitarian or other reasons to a third- for compassionate, humanitarian, rights- country national staying illegally on their based or other reasons to a third-country territory. In that event no return decision national staying irregularly on their shall be issued. Where a return decision territory. In that event no return decision has already been issued, it shall be shall be issued. Where a return decision withdrawn or suspended for the duration of has already been issued, it shall be validity of the residence permit or other withdrawn or suspended for the duration of authorisation offering a right to stay. validity of the residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay.

Or. en

Justification

This amendments is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 499 Pietro Bartolo

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Member States may at any moment 4. In any event, Member States must decide to grant an autonomous residence assess the possibility of granting an permit or other authorisation offering a autonomous residence permit or other right to stay for compassionate, authorisation offering a right to stay for humanitarian or other reasons to a third- compassionate, humanitarian or other country national staying illegally on their reasons to a third-country national staying territory. In that event no return decision illegally on their territory. In that event no shall be issued. Where a return decision return decision shall be issued. Where a has already been issued, it shall be return decision has already been issued, it withdrawn or suspended for the duration of shall be withdrawn or suspended for the validity of the residence permit or other duration of validity of the residence permit authorisation offering a right to stay. or other authorisation offering a right to stay.

Or. it

Justification

The current wording leaves wide discretion to Member States to decide whether or not to

PE658.738v01-00 216/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN make use of a permit or authorisation for compassionate or humanitarian reasons. The amendment is linked to the amendments to recital 19 on the suspension of a decision for other reasons.

Amendment 500 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Member States may at any moment 4. Member States may at any moment decide to grant an autonomous residence decide to grant an autonomous residence permit or other authorisation offering a permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay for compassionate, right to stay for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons to a third- humanitarian or other reasons to a third- country national staying illegally on their country national staying irregularly on territory. In that event no return decision their territory. In that event no return shall be issued. Where a return decision decision shall be issued. Where a return has already been issued, it shall be decision has already been issued, it shall be withdrawn or suspended for the duration of withdrawn or suspended for the duration of validity of the residence permit or other validity of the residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay. authorisation offering a right to stay.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 501 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. If a third-country national staying 5. If a third-country national staying illegally on the territory of a Member State illegally on the territory of a Member State is the subject of a pending procedure for is the subject of a pending procedure for renewing his or her residence permit or renewing his or her residence permit or

AM\1214327EN.docx 217/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN other authorisation offering a right to stay, other authorisation offering a right to stay, that Member State shall consider a return decision shall terminate that refraining from issuing a return decision, procedure. until the pending procedure is finished.

Or. nl

Justification

The mixing of different procedures to undermine asylum policy should be avoided. This amendment is necessary in order to achieve the objective set out in recital 3.

Amendment 502 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. If a third-country national staying 5. If a third-country national staying illegally on the territory of a Member State irregularly on the territory of a Member is the subject of a pending procedure for State is the subject of a pending procedure renewing his or her residence permit or for renewing his or her residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay, other authorisation offering a right to stay, that Member State shall consider refraining that Member State shall consider refraining from issuing a return decision, until the from issuing a return decision, until the pending procedure is finished. pending procedure is finished.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 503 Isabel Santos

Proposal for a directive Article 8.º – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 218/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Member States shall issue a return Deleted decision immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal stay of a third- country national, including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Qualification Regulation].

Or. pt

Amendment 504 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall issue a return deleted decision immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal stay of a third- country national, including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Qualification Regulation].

Or. en

Amendment 505 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall issue a return decision Member States shall issue a return decision immediately after the adoption of a as provided for in their national decision ending a legal stay of a third- legislation: country national, including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/…

AM\1214327EN.docx 219/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN [Qualification Regulation].

Or. en

Amendment 506 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall issue a return decision Member States may issue a return decision immediately after the adoption of a immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal stay of a third- decision ending a legal stay of a third- country national, including a decision not country national. granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Qualification Regulation].

Or. en

Amendment 507 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Michal Šimečka, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall issue a return decision Member States shall issue a return decision immediately after the adoption of a immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal stay of a third- decision ending a legal stay of a third- country national, including a decision not country national, including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Qualification Regulation]. [Qualification Regulation], only where the full scope of the principle of non- refoulement under European and international law is individually assessed in the asylum procedure.

PE658.738v01-00 220/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Or. en

Justification

Issuing a return decision directly after or together with the decision ending legal stay should be possible for Member States, but not obligatory, as in certain cases individual circumstances could require not to do so. Moreover, not all Member States fully assess the aspect of refoulement under return acquis during the asylum procedure, or in taking the decision rejecting or terminating the legal stay. Also, such immediate issuing of a return decision should not frustrate possible efforts to lodge an appeal, or the right to remain on the territory during such appeals.

Amendment 508 Monika Hohlmeier

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall issue a return decision Member States shall issue a return decision immediately after the adoption of a immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal stay of a third- decision ending a legal stay of a third- country national, including a decision not country national, including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Qualification Regulation]. [Qualification Regulation] in order to guarantee smooth procedures, which are also in the best interest of the returnees.

Or. en

Amendment 509 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall issue a return decision Member States shall issue a return decision immediately after the adoption of a at the same time as or immediately after decision ending a legal stay of a third- the adoption of a decision ending a legal country national, including a decision not stay of a third-country national, including a granting a third-country national refugee decision not granting a third-country

AM\1214327EN.docx 221/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN status or subsidiary protection status in national refugee status or subsidiary accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… protection status in accordance with [Qualification Regulation]. Regulation (EU) …/… [Qualification Regulation].

Or. fr

Amendment 510 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) in the same act with the decision ending or refusing a legal stay of a third- country national, including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) .../... [Qualification Regulation]. or

Or. en

Amendment 511 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) together with or without undue delay after the adoption of a decision ending or refusing a legal stay of a third- country national including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) .../... [Qualification Regulation]

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 222/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 512 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

This Directive shall not prevent Member This Directive shall not prevent Member States from adopting a return decision States from adopting a return decision together with a decision ending a legal stay together with a decision ending a legal stay of a third-country national, a decision on a of a third-country national, a decision on a removal and/or entry ban in a single removal and/or entry ban in a single administrative or judicial decision or act as administrative or judicial decision or act as provided for in their national legislation. provided for in their national legislation, without prejudice to the procedural safeguards available under Chapter III and under other relevant provisions of Union and national law.

Or. en

Amendment 513 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

This Directive shall not prevent Member This Directive shall not affect, under any States from adopting a return decision circumstances, the rights enshrined in together with a decision ending a legal Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental stay of a third-country national, a Rights of the European Union by decision on a removal and/or entry ban in reducing the levels of and accessibility to a single administrative or judicial decision effective judicial remedies compared to the or act as provided for in their national available, under national law, to their own legislation. citizens.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendments tabled to Article 16.

AM\1214327EN.docx 223/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 514 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The first and second subparagraphs are deleted without prejudice to the safeguards under Chapter III and under other relevant provisions of Union and national law.

Or. en

Amendment 515 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The first and second subparagraphs are deleted without prejudice to the safeguards under Chapter III and under other relevant provisions of Union and national law.

Or. en

Amendment 516 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6a. Member States may recognise any return decision issued in accordance with paragraph 1 by competent authorities of other Member States, pursuant to Council Directive 2001/40/EC. In such cases, the return is carried out according to the

PE658.738v01-00 224/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN applicable legislation of the Member State that carries out the return procedure.

Or. fr

Amendment 517 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 6 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6b. Member States shall, where necessary, cooperate through designated contact points, for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of return decisions. In particular, Member States may cooperate by allowing transit through the territory of another Member State for the purpose of complying with a return decision or obtaining travel documents. The procedures for such cooperation may be set out in bilateral or multilateral arrangements or agreements and may include conditions on escorting, response deadlines and associated costs.

Or. fr

Amendment 518 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 225/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN application by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application.

Or. en

Amendment 519 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

A return decision shall provide for an A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, without prejudice to of up to thirty days, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. Member States may provide in their and 4. Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an application be granted only following an application by the third-country national concerned. In by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an the possibility of submitting such an application. application and of the voluntary return programmes available in a language which the illegally staying third-country national understands, in sufficient time to enable them to exercise the rights guaranteed by this Directive.

Or. it

Amendment 520 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

A return decision shall provide for an Member States shall on a case by case

PE658.738v01-00 226/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN appropriate period for voluntary departure basis provide for the appropriate period for of up to thirty days, without prejudice to voluntary departure for a return decision the exception referred to in paragraphs 2 of maximum thirty days, without prejudice and 4. Member States may provide in their to the exception referred to in paragraphs 2 national legislation that such a period shall and 4. Member States may provide in their be granted only following an application national legislation that such a period shall by the third-country national concerned. In be granted only following an application such a case, Member States shall inform by the third-country national concerned. In the third-country nationals concerned of such a case, Member States shall inform the possibility of submitting such an the third-country nationals concerned of application. the possibility of submitting such an application.

Or. en

Justification

Member States should be allowed to assess on a case by case basis the appropriate amount of days for each return decision. The text was not clear enough on this point. Furthermore a maximum of 30 days is crucial in order to ensure effective return.

Amendment 521 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Maite Pagazaurtundúa

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

A return decision shall provide for an A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, without prejudice to of thirty days, without prejudice to the the exception referred to in paragraphs 2 exception referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. and 4. Member States may provide in their As a general rule, Member States shall national legislation that such a period grant such a period, without an application shall be granted only following an from the third country national being application by the third-country national required. Member States shall inform the concerned. In such a case, Member States third-country nationals of this period for shall inform the third-country nationals voluntary departure. concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 227/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Justification

As voluntary departure is the most (cost) efficient option, as underlined by various reports and by the EP impact assessment, this should always be given the full opportunity and priority, rather than limiting it. Making 30 days the standard applicable time frame will allow for clarity and will give actual opportunity for voluntary departure to materialise, as this is often a lengthy process of decision-making and arranging practicalities. Moreover, to fully facilitate voluntary departure, the 30 period should be granted as a general rule, not merely after an application for it by the third country national. This would also limit the burden on the Member States, as no separate application procedure will need to be set up.

Amendment 522 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

A return decision shall provide for an In exceptional circumstances, a return appropriate period for voluntary departure decision shall provide for an appropriate of up to thirty days, without prejudice to period for voluntary departure of up to the exception referred to in paragraphs 2 thirty days. Member States may provide in and 4. Member States may provide in their their national legislation that such a period national legislation that such a period shall shall be granted only following an be granted only following an application application by the third-country national by the third-country national concerned. In concerned. In such a case, Member States such a case, Member States shall inform shall inform the third-country nationals the third-country nationals concerned of concerned of the possibility of submitting the possibility of submitting such an such an application. application.

Or. nl

Amendment 523 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 228/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN and 4. Member States may provide in their Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an application be granted only following an application by the third-country national concerned. In by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an the possibility of submitting such an application. application.

Or. en

Amendment 524 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The time period provided for in the first deleted subparagraph shall not exclude the possibility for the third-country nationals concerned to leave earlier.

Or. en

Amendment 525 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The length of the period for voluntary deleted departure shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account in particular the prospect of return.

Or. nl

Justification

Asylum policy requires simplified, clear procedures in which equal rights are paramount.

AM\1214327EN.docx 229/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 526 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Although a personal determination is certainly crucial, this is not needed as a general rule, as 30 days should in principle always be granted. For exceptional cases of shorter periods, as outline in the amendment to Article 9(4) below, the individual assessment should indeed be made.

Amendment 527 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 528 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

PE658.738v01-00 230/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The length of the period for voluntary The length of the period for voluntary departure shall be determined with due departure shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account in individual case. particular the prospect of return.

Or. fr

Amendment 529 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Member States shall, where deleted necessary, extend the period for voluntary departure by an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as the length of stay, the existence of children attending school and the existence of other family and social links.

Or. nl

Justification

Children benefit from resuming their education as soon as possible in their home country among their cultural traditions and in their mother tongue. The procedure should be so short that no family and social ties are developed further during the procedure, with a view to invoking these ties to enforce permanent residence after rejection. This amendment does away with the possibility of extension for reasons contrary to the objective set out in recital 3.

Amendment 530 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 231/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN 2. Member States shall, where 2. Member States shall, where necessary, extend the period for voluntary necessary, extend the period for voluntary departure by an appropriate period, taking departure by an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as the length of the individual case, such as the length of stay, the existence of children attending stay, the existence of children attending school and the existence of other family school, the existence of other family and and social links. social links, illness and hospitalization.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 531 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Certain obligations aimed at 3. Certain obligations aimed at avoiding the risk of absconding, such as avoiding the risk of absconding, such as regular reporting to the authorities, deposit regular reporting to the authorities, deposit of an adequate financial guarantee, of an adequate financial guarantee that is submission of documents or the obligation sustainable for the third country national, to stay at a certain place may be imposed submission of documents or the obligation for the duration of the period for voluntary to stay at a certain place may be imposed departure. for the duration of the period for voluntary departure.

Or. en

Amendment 532 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Member States shall not grant a deleted period for voluntary departure in

PE658.738v01-00 232/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN following cases: (a) where there is a risk of absconding determined in accordance with Article 6 ; (b) where an application for legal stay has been dismissed as manifestly unfounded or fraudulent; (c) where the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. en

Amendment 533 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Maite Pagazaurtundúa

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Member States shall not grant a 4. In exceptional cases, a shorter period for voluntary departure in following period for voluntary departure of no less cases: than 15 days could also be granted, after an individual assessment of the prospect of return. A period of less than 15 days can only be granted if an individual assessment has found that the following cases are applicable:

Or. en

Amendment 534 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Member States shall not grant a 4. Member States may grant a period period for voluntary departure in following for voluntary departure of no less than cases: seven days and exceptionally refrain from granting a period of voluntary departure

AM\1214327EN.docx 233/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN in following cases :

Or. en

Amendment 535 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) where there is a risk of absconding (a) in case of explicit expression of determined in accordance with Article 6 ; non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of the Directive or non-compliance with a measure aiming at preventing the risk of absconding.

Or. en

Amendment 536 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) where an application for legal stay deleted has been dismissed as manifestly unfounded or fraudulent;

Or. en

Amendment 537 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point b

PE658.738v01-00 234/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) where an application for legal stay (b) where an application for legal stay has been dismissed as manifestly has been dismissed as fraudulent; unfounded or fraudulent;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled to Article 9(4) regarding the short periods for voluntary departure. The deletion of the case of the “manifestly unfounded” is needed as, linked to the proposals for the Asylum Procedures Regulation, this could cover all asylum applications from “safe” third countries / countries of origin, which would thereby exclude potentially large groups of asylum applicants from the possibility to depart voluntarily.

Amendment 538 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) where the third-country national (c) where the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security. public security or national security or has been convicted of an offence which is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 539 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c

AM\1214327EN.docx 235/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) where the third-country national (c) where the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, concerned poses a genuine and present public security or national security. risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. en

Amendment 540 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(ca) where the examination of an application for international protection was rejected in the cases referred to in Article 39(1c), (1d) or (1f) of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] or where the application for international protection was rejected after an accelerated examination procedure in the cases referred to in Article 40(1b), (1c) or (1d) of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

Or. en

Justification

As the return directive is partly connected to the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR), the Return Directive should be aligned with the Parliament position on the APR. We therefore add the necessary links in this Directive to Article 39 of the APR on implicit withdrawal of applications and to Article 40 of the APR on the accelerated examination procedure.

Amendment 541 Monika Hohlmeier, Lena Düpont

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)

PE658.738v01-00 236/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(ca) This should particularly apply to third country nationals who have committed offences in several Member States or offences related to terrorism or serious crime.

Or. en

Amendment 542 Monika Hohlmeier, Lena Düpont

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(cb) This should also apply to third country nationals who have been convicted for benefit fraud by using multiple identities.

Or. en

Amendment 543 Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Beata Kempa, Patryk Jaki

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4 a. 5 If a return decision sets a deadline for voluntary departure and provided that the third-country national to whom that decision pertains does not constitute a threat to public order or public security or to the national security of the Member States, he or she may, within that deadline and for the sole purpose of enforcing that decision, transit through the territory of a Member State other than the one which issued the decision.

AM\1214327EN.docx 237/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Member States may require such transit to be subject to their prior consent. Member States shall inform the Commission and each other of the introduction or withdrawal of the obligation to obtain their prior consent for the transit of a third-country national through their territories.

Or. pl

Amendment 544 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4a. Member States may decide not to grant a period for voluntary departure where the third-country national concerned poses a genuine and present risk to public security or national security.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to paragraph 4 of Article 9.

Amendment 545 Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Beata Kempa, Patryk Jaki

Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 4 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4 b. 5. If a third-country national is found on the territory of a Member State: (a) in respect of whom a return decision has been issued by another Member State without a time limit for voluntary

PE658.738v01-00 238/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN departure, (b) who, despite being covered by a return decision issued by another Member State which sets a deadline for voluntary departure, has not obtained consent to transit through the territory of that Member State, if such consent was required, (c) who is considered a threat to public order or public security or to the national security of that Member State then that Member State may either apply the procedure laid down in Council Directive 2001/40/EC or return the third- country national concerned to the Member State that issued the decision.

Or. pl

Amendment 546 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Member States shall take all deleted necessary measures to enforce the return decision if no period for voluntary departure has been granted in accordance with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to return has not been complied with within the period for voluntary departure granted in accordance with Article 9. Those measures shall include all measures necessary to confirm the identity of illegally staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document.

Or. en

Amendment 547

AM\1214327EN.docx 239/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Sophia in 't Veld, Malik Azmani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Member States shall take all 1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to enforce the return necessary measures to enforce the return decision if no period for voluntary decision if no period for voluntary departure has been granted in accordance departure has been granted in accordance with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to return has not been complied with within return has not been complied with within the period for voluntary departure granted the period for voluntary departure granted in accordance with Article 9. Those in accordance with Article 9. Those measures shall include all measures measures shall include all measures necessary to confirm the identity of necessary to confirm the identity of illegally staying third-country nationals illegally staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document. and to obtain such a document. Member States shall also intensify cooperation, including through information sharing and the application of Directive 2001/40/EC on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, in line with fundamental rights guarantees.

Or. en

Amendment 548 Monika Hohlmeier, Lena Düpont

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 240/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN necessary to confirm the identity of having been convicted for severe and illegally staying third-country nationals repeated criminal offences, in particular who do not hold a valid travel document terrorism. Those measures shall include all and to obtain such a document. measures necessary to confirm the identity of illegally staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document.

Or. en

Amendment 549 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Member States shall take all 1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to enforce the return necessary measures to enforce the return decision if no period for voluntary decision if no period for voluntary departure has been granted in accordance departure has been granted in accordance with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to return has not been complied with within return has not been complied with within the period for voluntary departure granted the period for voluntary departure granted in accordance with Article 9. Those in accordance with Article 9. Those measures shall include all measures measures shall include all measures necessary to confirm the identity of necessary to confirm the identity of illegally staying third-country nationals illegally staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document. and to obtain such a document, including the penalties laid down in national law where Member States have enacted such penalties.

Or. fr

Amendment 550 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 1

AM\1214327EN.docx 241/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. nl

Justification

Forced return is a necessary component of an efficient asylum system. Only in exceptional situations can a period of voluntary departure be considered.

Amendment 551 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Member States shall take all 1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to enforce the return necessary measures to enforce the return decision if no period for voluntary decision if no period for voluntary departure has been granted in accordance departure has been granted in accordance with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to return has not been complied with within return has not been complied with within the period for voluntary departure granted the period for voluntary departure granted in accordance with Article 9. Those in accordance with Article 9. Those measures shall include all measures measures shall include all measures necessary to confirm the identity of necessary to confirm the identity of illegally staying third-country nationals irregularly staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document. and to obtain such a document.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 242/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

Amendment 552 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1a. Without prejudice to the other cases provided by Union and international law for which a removal of a third- country national is not allowed, and in addition to the cases falling within the scope of subsidiary protection, a return decision and the removal of a third country national to a third country or territory affected by restrictive measures taken by the European Union pursuant to Article 215 TFEU or to Title V of Chapter 2 TEU, as well by restrictive measures adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations shall be forbidden - without exception.

Or. en

Amendment 553 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. If a Member State has granted a 2. If a Member State has granted a period for voluntary departure in period for voluntary departure in accordance with Article 9, the return accordance with Article 9, the return decision may be enforced only after the decision may be enforced only after the

AM\1214327EN.docx 243/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN period has expired, unless a risk as referred period has expired, unless a risk as referred to in Article 9(4) arises during that period. to in Article 9(4a) arises during that period.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to par. 4a of Article 9.

Amendment 554 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Member States may adopt a 3. Member States should also order separate administrative or judicial removal in the return decision. decision or act ordering the removal.

Or. nl

Justification

This leads to administrative simplification and a clearer and fairer legal situation for all third-country nationals. This amendment is necessary in order to achieve an effective return policy, as expressed in recital 3.

Amendment 555 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Where Member States use — as a 4. Member States shall never use last resort — coercive measures to carry coercive measures to carry out the removal out the removal of a third-country national of a third-country national. Member States who resists removal, such measures shall shall always abide by fundamental rights be proportionate and shall not exceed and with due respect for the dignity and reasonable force. They shall be physical integrity of the third-country implemented as provided for in national national concerned. legislation in accordance with

PE658.738v01-00 244/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 40.

Amendment 556 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Where Member States use — as a 4. Where Member States use coercive last resort — coercive measures to carry measures to carry out the removal of a out the removal of a third-country national third-country national who resists removal, who resists removal, such measures shall such measures shall be proportionate and be proportionate and shall not exceed shall not exceed reasonable force. They reasonable force. They shall be shall be implemented as provided for in implemented as provided for in national national legislation in accordance with legislation in accordance with fundamental fundamental rights and with due respect for rights and with due respect for the dignity the dignity and physical integrity of the and physical integrity of the third-country third-country national concerned. national concerned.

Or. nl

Justification

Forced repatriation of the illegal alien should be the first choice. This amendment is necessary in order to achieve an effective return policy, as expressed in recital 3.

Amendment 557 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 245/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN 5. In carrying out removals by air, deleted Member States shall take into account the Common Guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air annexed to Decision 2004/573/EC.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendment tabled to recital 40.

Amendment 558 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6. Member States shall provide for an 6. Member States shall ensure the effective forced-return monitoring system. monitoring of returns through independent national human rights institutions. Member States shall ensure that all return operations are duly monitored by independent return monitors, adequately trained on Union and international fundamental rights and refugee law.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendment tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 559 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6. Member States shall provide for an 6. Member States shall provide for an effective forced-return monitoring system.

PE658.738v01-00 246/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN effective forced-return monitoring system. This system shall not involve the systematic implementation of a check on each forced return operation.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment adds detail to recital 4 and clarifies the scope of the obligations resulting from it.

Amendment 560 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6a. The independent return monitors, shall carry out inspections, also without prior notice, to the detention facilities and any other national facilities where third country nationals are being detained or are being hosted pending removal. During the inspection, the independent return monitors shall have the possibility to: - have access to all areas of the detention facilities; - interview the third-country national detained or hosted there; - ask any questions to the staff working in the detention facilities; - demand and receive copies of documents; Each independent national human rights institution mandated to monitor returns shall report to the European Parliament and/or to the national parliament of the relevant Member State where the institution is based, regarding infringements of the provisions of this Directive, as well as in the case of violation of fundamental rights by the

AM\1214327EN.docx 247/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Member State in the application of the Directive.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendment tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 561 Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Beata Kempa, Patryk Jaki

Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6 a. Member States may decide that any costs they incur in connection with an expulsion shall be reimbursed by the third-country national concerned by the return decision or by any other person or entity responsible for the third-country national’s stay or employment in their territory.

Or. pl

Amendment 562 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) when it would violate the principle deleted of non-refoulement, or

Or. fr

Justification

In order to achieve consistency with the amendments to Article 16 – paragraph 3 –

PE658.738v01-00 248/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN subparagraph and Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1, the references to the principle of non-refoulement should be deleted.

Amendment 563 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) when it would violate the principle deleted of non-refoulement; or

Or. nl

Justification

The principle of non-refoulement is sufficiently guaranteed and is not served by the postponement of removal. The principle of non-refoulement has already been mentioned in recital 20 and the international human rights conventions referred to were mentioned in recital 4. A mere postponement of expulsion runs counter to an effective asylum policy as expressed in recital 3.

Amendment 564 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(ba) the third country national's participation in ongoing criminal or administrative proceedings as victims, suspects or witnesses, in particular in relation to Directive 2009/52/EC, Directive 2011/36/EU, and Directive 2012/29/EU.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 14 and recital 15a (new).

AM\1214327EN.docx 249/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 565 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) the third-country national's deleted physical state or mental capacity;

Or. nl

Justification

The third-country national's physical state or mental capacity was assessed earlier in the procedure. In the past, specific mention of these details after proceedings were terminated has led to orchestrated repatriation incidents. It leads to an inefficient asylum system and a less equitable treatment of third-country nationals. The amendment prevents a carousel of procedures from standing in the way of an effective return policy, as expressed in recital 3.

Amendment 566 Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Hilde Vautmans, Abir Al-Sahlani

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

12 Return and removal of 12 Return and removal of unaccompanied minors unaccompanied children

Or. en

Justification

The Children Rights Intergroup introduces additional safeguards to ensure that the best interests of the child are always the primary consideration as part of return procedures involving children, irrespective of whether they are unaccompanied, separated or accompanied by their families.

Amendment 567 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

PE658.738v01-00 250/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Proposal for a directive Article 12 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

12 Return and removal of 12 Return and removal of minors unaccompanied minors

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is linked to the amendments on Article 20.

Amendment 568 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

12 Return and removal of 12 Return and removal of minors unaccompanied minors

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked amendments tabled to recital 40.

Amendment 569 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Before deciding to issue a return deleted decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor, assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return shall be granted with due consideration being given to the best

AM\1214327EN.docx 251/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN interests of the child.

Or. nl

Justification

It is in the minor's interest to return as soon as possible to his or her home country, where the minor will be under the responsibility of the government of his or her home country. This amendment is necessary in order to achieve an effective return policy, as expressed in recital 3.

Amendment 570 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Before deciding to issue a return 1. As soon as possible after the decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor's identification, and in any case minor, assistance by appropriate bodies before deciding to issue a return decision in other than the authorities enforcing return respect of the minor, Member States shall shall be granted with due consideration carry out a best interests assessment, to being given to the best interests of the identify whether return is in the child's child. best interests whether he or she is within the family or is unaccompanied or separated child. In cases where return is identified as serving the child's best interests, specific and appropriate implementation measures shall be put in place. Assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return, including trained care givers as well as legal and linguistic assistance, shall be granted with due consideration being given to the best interests of the child.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40.

PE658.738v01-00 252/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 571 Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Before deciding to issue a return 1. Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor, assistance by appropriate bodies minor, assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return other than the authorities - including child shall be granted with due consideration protection officers for the entire duration being given to the best interests of the of the process - enforcing return shall be child. granted with due consideration being given to the best interests of the child. Prior the decision to remove an unaccompanied child Member States shall also take into consideration the legitimate and stable ties the child has developed in the Member States, including the attendance to school.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 572 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 253/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN granted with due consideration being given to the best interests of the child.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment relates to the best interests of the child, which permeate the Directive as a whole. For example, it is closely linked to and complements Amendment 23 and recital 43.

Amendment 573 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Olivier Chastel, Hilde Vautmans, Dragoş Tudorache, Michal Šimečka, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Before deciding to issue a return 1. Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor, assistance by appropriate bodies minor, assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return other than the authorities enforcing return shall be granted with due consideration shall be granted and the best interests of being given to the best interests of the the child shall be the primary child. consideration and the guardian or legal representative who is appointed to assist the unaccompanied minor shall be consulted.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment made to Article 14 on return management in which particular attention should be given to vulnerable groups, in particular to children. This amendment strengthens safeguards for the rights of children and is in line with the EP position in other files, such as in CEAS and as already partially agreed in trilogues on these files.

Amendment 574 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive

PE658.738v01-00 254/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Article 12 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. it

Justification

Amendment needed because it is intrinsically linked to the amendments made to the articles on the treatment of unaccompanied minors in this Directive and to other texts covered by the reform of the CEAS as adopted by the European Parliament in the previous legislature.

Amendment 575 Maria Grapini

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(1) Before deciding to issue a return (1) Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor, assistance by appropriate bodies minor, assistance by appropriate bodies other than the authorities enforcing return other than the authorities enforcing return shall be granted with due consideration shall be granted with due consideration being given to the best interests of the being given to the best interests of the child child. and special care for the child.

Or. ro

Amendment 576 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 1

AM\1214327EN.docx 255/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Before deciding to issue a return 1. Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied decision in respect of a minor, assistance minor, assistance by appropriate bodies by appropriate bodies other than the other than the authorities enforcing return authorities enforcing return shall be shall be granted with due consideration granted with due consideration being given being given to the best interests of the to the best interests of the child. child.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is linked to the amendments on Article 20.

Amendment 577 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Before removing an deleted unaccompanied minor from the territory of a Member State, the authorities of that Member State shall be satisfied that he or she will be returned to a member of his or her family, a nominated guardian or adequate reception facilities in the State of return.

Or. nl

Justification

The situation in the home country is the responsibility of the government of the home country. The home country also knows best who the family is or who can be designated as the guardian. This amendment is necessary in order to achieve an effective return policy, as expressed in recital 3. The original text imposes conditions which a Member State cannot meet or which are dependent on the good will of third countries.

Amendment 578 Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Hilde Vautmans, Abir Al-Sahlani

PE658.738v01-00 256/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Before removing an 2. Before removing an unaccompanied minor from the territory of unaccompanied minor from the territory of a Member State, the authorities of that a Member State, the authorities of that Member State shall be satisfied that he or Member State shall be satisfied that he or she will be returned to a member of his or she will be returned to a member of his or her family, a nominated guardian or her family, a nominated guardian or adequate reception facilities in the State of adequate reception facilities in the State of return. return and shall conduct a thorough follow-up to ensure the child best interest is fully respected. When the return is deemed in the best interest of the child, Member States shall ensure the child receives appropriate assistance.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 579 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Before removing an 2. Before returning an unaccompanied minor from the territory of unaccompanied minor or separated minor a Member State, the authorities of that from the territory of a Member State, the Member State shall be satisfied that he or authorities of that Member State shall be she will be returned to a member of his or satisfied that he or she will be returned to a her family, a nominated guardian or member of his or her family and provide adequate reception facilities in the State of for appropriate transfer if care and return. custodial arrangements that are adequate and appropriate for the individual minor, his/her parents and his/her customary

AM\1214327EN.docx 257/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN primary caregiver.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40.

Amendment 580 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2a. Member States shall provide minors and families with documentation indicating they are in an ongoing return procedure and that both of them, including legal or customary primary caregivers, shall not be subject to detention.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 28 and 40. Detention of minors is never in their best interests. A ban on detention of minors should therefore be imposed to protect minors. The concept of the best interests of the child also entails that parents or legal or customary primary care giver should never be detained either.

Amendment 581 Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Hilde Vautmans, Abir Al-Sahlani

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2a. Unaccompanied children shall be assisted by a guardian throughout the entire process and the best interest of the

PE658.738v01-00 258/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN child shall be the primary consideration in all decisions.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 582 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2b. Member States shall ensure that an independent and qualified guardian with the necessary expertise and training who could ensure that the best interests of the child are taken into consideration is appointed to assist unaccompanied and separated children. To that end, the guardian shall be involved in the procedure to ensure that returns solely occur for the child if it is in his or her best interests.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40.

Amendment 583 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 2 c (new)

AM\1214327EN.docx 259/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2c. Return and reintegration assistance shall be granted to all minors and their families.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40.

Amendment 584 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 13

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 13 deleted Entry ban 1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban: (a) if no period for voluntary departure has been granted, or (b) if the obligation to return has not been complied with. In other cases return decisions may be accompanied by an entry ban. 2. Member States may 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.

PE658.738v01-00 260/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN 3. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case and shall not in principle exceed five years. It may however exceed five years if the third-country national represents a serious threat to public policy, public security or national security. 4. Member States shall consider withdrawing or suspending an entry ban where a third-country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued in accordance with paragraph 1, second subparagraph, can demonstrate that he or she has left the territory of a Member State in full compliance with a return decision. Victims of trafficking in human beings who have been granted a residence permit pursuant to Council Directive 2004/81/EC28 shall not be subject of an entry ban without prejudice to paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (b), and provided that the third-country national concerned does not represent a threat to public policy, public security or national security. Member States may refrain from issuing, withdraw or suspend an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons. Member States may withdraw or suspend an entry ban in individual cases or certain categories of cases for other reasons. 5. Where a Member State is considering issuing a residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay to a third-country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued by another Member State, it shall first consult the Member State having issued the entry ban in accordance with Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 2018/XXX29 . 6. Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall apply without prejudice to the right to international

AM\1214327EN.docx 261/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN protection, as defined in point (a) of Article 2 of Directive 2011/95/EU, in the Member States. ______28 Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 19). 29 Regulation (EU) 2018/… of the European Parliament and of the Council of […] on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of border checks, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, and amending and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 [adoption pending].

Or. en

Amendment 585 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Return decisions shall be accompanied by Return decisions may be accompanied by an entry ban: an entry ban:

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is related to amendments on Article 9.

Amendment 586 Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei

PE658.738v01-00 262/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) if the obligation to return has not (b) if the obligation to return has not been complied with. been complied with. In the case of children return decision shall not be accompanied by an entry ban.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 14 and 28 and Article 9 relating to voluntary departure and recital 25 relating to entry bans by the Rapporteur. The Children Rights Intergroup is of the view that, in particular in cases involving children, imposing entry bans would be disproportionate.

Amendment 587 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Member States may impose an deleted 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.

Or. en

Justification

Such entry bans upon exit will discourage certain third country nationals to leave the territory of a Member States.

AM\1214327EN.docx 263/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 588 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 589 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Member States may impose an 2. Member States shall impose an entry ban, which does not accompany a entry ban to a third-country national who return decision, to a third-country national has been illegally staying in the territory of who has been illegally staying in the the Member States and whose illegal stay territory of the Member States and whose is detected in connection with border illegal stay is detected in connection with checks carried out at exit in accordance border checks carried out at exit in with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) accordance with Article 8 of Regulation 2016/399. (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and taking into account the principle of proportionality.

Or. fr

PE658.738v01-00 264/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 590 Milan Uhrík

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Member States may impose an 2. Member States shall impose an entry ban, which does not accompany a entry ban, which does not accompany a return decision, to a third-country national return decision, to a third-country national who has been illegally staying in the who has been illegally staying in the territory of the Member States and whose territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the (EU) 2016/399. basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and taking into account the principle of proportionality.

Or. sk

Amendment 591 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Member States may impose an 2. Member States may impose an entry ban, which does not accompany a entry ban, which does not accompany a return decision, to a third-country national return decision, to a third-country national who has been illegally staying in the who has been illegally staying in the territory of the Member States and whose territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the of the specific circumstances of the individual case and taking into account individual case. the principle of proportionality.

Or. fr

AM\1214327EN.docx 265/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 592 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. The length of the entry ban shall be 3. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case and circumstances of the individual case, up to shall not in principle exceed five years. It a maximum of five years. It may however may however exceed five years if the third- exceed five years if the third-country country national represents a serious threat national represents a serious threat to to public policy, public security or national public policy, public security or national security. security where this has been duly proven either by a conviction or by other objective elements that may be deduced from the circumstances of the case.

Or. it

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to the amendment proposed by the Commission to paragraph 2 of Article 13a in the light of the fact that the authorities are given the power to extend the entry ban also in cases of checks on the external borders.

Amendment 593 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. The length of the entry ban shall be 3. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case and circumstances of the individual case and shall not in principle exceed five years. It shall not in principle exceed ten years. It may however exceed five years if the third- may however exceed ten years if the third- country national represents a serious threat country national represents a serious threat to public policy, public security or national to public policy, public security or national security. security or has been convicted of an offence which is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at

PE658.738v01-00 266/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN least three years.

Or. en

Justification

The addition of this sentence clarifies that also a criminal act that amounts to a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years for the purposes of this Directive should not go without consequences for the length of the entry ban for that person. Same applies to other parts of this Directive where this sentence is used. As the EC proposal is adding the risk to public policy, public security or national security throughout the proposal, it is important to add this specification.

Amendment 594 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. The length of the entry ban shall be 3. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case and circumstances of the individual case and shall not in principle exceed five years. It shall not in principle exceed five years. It may however exceed five years if the third- may however exceed five years if the third- country national represents a serious threat country national represents a genuine and to public policy, public security or national serious threat to public policy, public security. security or national security.

Or. en

Amendment 595 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 267/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN country national represents a serious threat third-country national represents a serious to public policy, public security or national threat to public policy, public security or security. national security.

Or. nl

Justification

The carousel of applications must be stopped. Nationals of third countries should know that they have to build their future in their own country. This will strengthen their commitment to reintegration. The text proposed by the Commission contradicts the wording of recital 3 on an effective return policy.

Amendment 596 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall consider deleted withdrawing or suspending an entry ban where a third-country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued in accordance with paragraph 1, second subparagraph, can demonstrate that he or she has left the territory of a Member State in full compliance with a return decision.

Or. nl

Justification

Obedience to a return decision cannot in itself give a right to re-entry. This creates the carousel of applications. The text proposed by the Commission contradicts the wording of recital 3 on an effective return policy.

Amendment 597 Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Beata Kempa, Patryk Jaki

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

PE658.738v01-00 268/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall consider withdrawing Member States shall consider withdrawing or suspending an entry ban where a third- or suspending an entry ban where a third- country national who is the subject of an country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued in accordance with entry ban issued in accordance with paragraph 1, second subparagraph, can paragraph 1, second subparagraph, can demonstrate that he or she has left the demonstrate that he or she has left the territory of a Member State in full territory of a Member State in full compliance with a return decision. compliance with a return decision. Member States shall make the withdrawal or suspension of an entry ban conditional upon the third-country national or other person or liable entity paying the charges arising from the decision, taken in accordance with Article 10(7), to establish the costs related to the expulsion of that third-country national. In such a case, the entry ban shall not be withdrawn or suspended until the third-country national or other person or liable entity has paid those charges. If the charges have not been paid by the end of the period of the entry ban, that period shall be extended until the date on which those charges become time-barred under national law.

Or. pl

Justification

Amendment linked to the amendment of Article 10.7 (new). The amendment introduces the possibility of withdrawing or suspending the entry ban, depending on the charges related to the costs of expulsion.

Amendment 598 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Victims of trafficking in human beings deleted who have been granted a residence permit pursuant to Council Directive 2004/81/EC2828 shall not be subject of an

AM\1214327EN.docx 269/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN entry ban without prejudice to paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (b), and provided that the third-country national concerned does not represent a genuine and present threat to public security or national security. ______28 Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 19).

Or. nl

Justification

An allegation of trafficking in human beings does not in itself create residence rights for the alleged victims. Otherwise, candidates for immigration would have an incentive to contact traffickers in human beings or to rely on the assistance of traffickers in their asylum applications.

Amendment 599 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Victims of trafficking in human beings Victims of trafficking in human beings who have been granted a residence permit who have been granted a residence permit pursuant to Council Directive pursuant to Council Directive 2004/81/EC28 shall not be subject of an 2004/81/EC28 shall not be subject of an entry ban without prejudice to paragraph 1, entry ban without prejudice to paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (b), and provided first subparagraph, point (b), and provided that the third-country national concerned that the third-country national concerned does not represent a threat to public policy, does not represent a threat to public policy, public security or national security. public security or national security or has been convicted of an offence which is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years.

PE658.738v01-00 270/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN ______28 Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 28 Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ L 261, the competent authorities (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 19). 6.8.2004, p. 19).

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 600 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. Where a Member State is 5.A Member State can not issue a considering issuing a residence permit or residence permit or other authorisation other authorisation offering a right to stay offering a right to stay to a third-country to a third-country national who is the national who is the subject of an entry ban subject of an entry ban issued by another issued by another Member State. Member State, it shall first consult the Member State having issued the entry ban in accordance with Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 2018/XXX 29 . ______29 Regulation (EU) 2018/… of the European Parliament and of the Council of […] on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of border checks, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, and amending

AM\1214327EN.docx 271/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 [has yet to be adopted].

Or. nl

Justification

The logic of the Schengen area requires that one Member State may not overturn the re-entry ban of another Member State .

Amendment 601 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Return Management Monitoring of return procedures and reintegration in the country of return

Or. en

Amendment 602 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Each Member State shall set up, 1. Each Member State shall monitor operate, maintain and further develop a return procedures and reintegration in the national return management system, country of return. which shall process all the necessary information for implementing this Directive, in particular as regards the management of individual cases as well as of any return-related procedure.

Or. en

Amendment 603

PE658.738v01-00 272/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Dragoş Tudorache

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Each Member State shall set up, 1. Each Member State shall set up, operate, maintain and further develop a operate, maintain and further develop a national return management system, which national return management system, which shall process all the necessary information shall process all the necessary information for implementing this Directive, in for implementing this Directive, in particular as regards the management of particular as regards the management of individual cases as well as of any return- individual cases as well as of any return- related procedure. related procedure, including post-return monitoring and support to ensure sustainable returns.

Or. en

Amendment 604 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Each Member State shall set up, 1. Each Member State shall set up, operate, maintain and further develop a operate, maintain and further develop a national return management system, which national return management system, which shall process all the necessary information shall process the necessary information for for implementing this Directive, in implementing this Directive, in particular particular as regards the management of as regards the management of individual individual cases as well as of any return- cases as well as of any return-related related procedure. procedure, including reintegration in the country of return.

Or. en

Amendment 605 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive

AM\1214327EN.docx 273/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1a. Member States shall ensure that individual assessments are carried out to provide tailored support to each migrant throughout the return procedure in a gender and age-sensitive, and in compliance with international law.

Or. en

Amendment 606 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1b. Legal counselling shall be provided in a language that can be understood by the third country national. It shall take place in conditions that allow migrants to ask questions and express their views freely, including their concerns.

Or. en

Amendment 607 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 1 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1c. At all stages of the procedure, it shall be possible for the third-country national concerned to avail himself or herself of existing procedures to determine and apply for residence status, including international protection

PE658.738v01-00 274/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN procedures, any other form of protection procedures provided by national law and other procedures that provide a status.

Or. en

Amendment 608 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. The national system shall be set up deleted in a way which ensures technical compatibility allowing for communication with the central system established in accordance with Article 50 of Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation].

Or. en

Amendment 609 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Olivier Chastel, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. The national system shall be set up 2. The national system shall be set up in a way which ensures technical in a way which ensures technical compatibility allowing for communication compatibility allowing for communication with the central system established in with the central system established in accordance with Article 50 of Regulation accordance with Article 50 of Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation]. (EU) …/…[EBCG Regulation] and in full compliance with all relevant EU data protection law, in particular the GDPR and the Law Enforcement Directive. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act to establish the specific legal framework for this central system and the communication with this system,

AM\1214327EN.docx 275/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN including clearly identifying the purposes of the processing via this centralised system and of the categories of personal data to be processed for each of these purposes.

Or. en

Justification

The current Commission proposal is quite unclear, more clarity is needed, along the lines of the opinion of the EDPS on this recast proposal.

Amendment 610 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall establish programmes Member States shall decide for themselves for providing logistical, financial and other whether to establish programmes for material or in-kind assistance, in providing logistical, financial and other accordance with national legislation, for material or in-kind assistance, in the purpose of supporting the return of accordance with national legislation, for illegally staying third-country nationals the purpose of supporting the return of who are nationals of third countries listed illegally staying third-country nationals in Annex I to Council Regulation who are nationals of third countries listed 539/200130. in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130. ______30 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 30 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1). that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

Or. nl

Justification

This is a matter of national sovereignty.

PE658.738v01-00 276/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 611 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall establish programmes Member States shall establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national legislation, for accordance with national legislation, for the purpose of supporting the return of the purpose of supporting the return of illegally staying third-country nationals irregularly staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130 . 539/200130 . ______30 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 30 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1). that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 612 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3.Member States shall establish 3.Member States shall establish programmes for providing logistical, programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national assistance, in accordance with national legislation, for the purpose of supporting provisions, for the purpose of supporting

AM\1214327EN.docx 277/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN the return of illegally staying third-country the return of illegally staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third nationals who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130 . Regulation 539/200130 . ______30 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 30 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1 that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1 p. 1. p. 1.

Or. fr

Amendment 613 Balázs Hidvéghi

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall establish programmes Member States may establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national legislation, for accordance with national legislation, for the purpose of supporting the return of the purpose of supporting the return of illegally staying third-country nationals illegally staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130 . 539/200130 . ______30 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 30 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1). that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

Or. en

Amendment 614

PE658.738v01-00 278/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Maite Pagazaurtundúa

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Such assistance may include support for Such assistance shall include support for reintegration in the third country of return. reintegration in the third country of return which follow up on personal reintegration plans of returnees where legally and practically possible, to ensure sustainable returns, especially taking into account the specific circumstances of each third country national, and giving full attention to the cases of vulnerable persons. Member States shall ensure a follow up of these plans by dedicated and independent monitoring bodies.

Or. en

Amendment 615 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Such assistance may include support for Such assistance shall include support for reintegration in the third country of return. reintegration in the third country of return.

Or. en

Amendment 616 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Such assistance may include support for Such assistance shall include support for

AM\1214327EN.docx 279/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN reintegration in the third country of return. reintegration in the third country of return.

Or. en

Amendment 617 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

National programmes shall include a continuum of care for the third country national throughout all stages of return and reintegration process. This shall include the provision of adequate information on conditions in countries of return prior tot he departure, provided by independent or UN bodies in understandable language, appropriate transfer of care for persons in vulnerable situations and custodial arrangements for unaccompanied and separated children and their parents. National programmes shall include mechanism for the appropriate transfer of legal assistance and access to justice and redress mechanisms, access to relevant national administrative and criminal proceedings, in particular in accordance with Directives 2009/52/EC, 2011/36/EY and 2012/29/EU, throughout the return procedure, including measures to ensure that readmission agreements include access to justice after return to a third country.

Or. en

Amendment 618 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

PE658.738v01-00 280/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The granting of such assistance, deleted including its kind and extent, shall be subject to the cooperation of the third- country national concerned with the competent authorities of the Member States as provided for in Article 7 of this Directive.

Or. en

Amendment 619 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

This deletion is in line with the amendments on Article 7.

Amendment 620 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 281/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN concerned with the competent authorities concerned with the competent authorities of the Member States as provided for in of the Member States as provided for in Article 7 of this Directive. Article 7 of this Directive, and may be subject to the conditions and grounds for exclusion laid down in national provisions, particularly with regard to reintegration assistance in the third country of origin. The assistance referred to in this paragraph shall not be granted as a rule to a third-country national who has already benefited from reintegration assistance provided by a Member State.

Or. fr

Amendment 621 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The granting of such assistance, including The granting of such assistance, including its kind and extent, shall be subject to the its kind and extent, may be subject to the cooperation of the third-country national cooperation of the third-country national concerned with the competent authorities concerned with the competent authorities of the Member States as provided for in of the Member States as provided for in Article 7 of this Directive. Article 7 of this Directive, where the non- cooperation of the third country national gives substantial reason to assume that the third country national will not cooperate with the reintegration support in the future.

Or. en

Amendment 622 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

PE658.738v01-00 282/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The granting of such assistance, including The granting of such assistance, including its kind and extent, shall be subject to the its kind and extent, shall be subject to the cooperation of the third-country national cooperation of the third-country national concerned with the competent authorities concerned with the competent authorities of the Member States as provided for in of the Member States as provided for in Article 7 of this Directive. Article 7 of this Directive. Assistance granted under this paragraph shall only be granted once.

Or. en

Amendment 623 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Return decisions and, if issued, entry-ban Member States shall provide a written and decisions and decisions on removal shall oral translations of the main elements of be issued in writing and give reasons in decisions related to return, as referred to fact and in law as well as information in paragraph 1, including information on about available legal remedies. the available legal remedies in a language that the third-country national understands.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendment tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 624 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The information on reasons in fact may deleted be limited where national law allows for the right to information to be restricted, in

AM\1214327EN.docx 283/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN particular in order to safeguard national security, defence, public security and for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to the amendment tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 625 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 15 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Member States shall provide, upon 2. Member States shall provide a request, a written or oral translation of the written and oral translation of the main main elements of decisions related to elements of decisions related to return, as return, as referred to in paragraph 1, referred to in paragraph 1, including including information on the available information on the available legal remedies legal remedies in a language the third- in a language the third-country national country national understands or may understands. reasonably be presumed to understand.

Or. en

Justification

In order to ensure coherence in the proposal, elements concerning provision of information have been moved from article 15 to article 7.

Amendment 626 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 15 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Member States shall provide, upon 2. Member States shall provide a request, a written or oral translation of the written or oral translation of the main main elements of decisions related to elements of decisions related to return, as

PE658.738v01-00 284/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN return, as referred to in paragraph 1, referred to in paragraph 1, including including information on the available information on the available legal remedies legal remedies in a language the third- in a language the third-country national country national understands or may understands. reasonably be presumed to understand.

Or. en

Justification

Access to understandable information is crucial for third country nationals especially to prepare their return. This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments on article 7.

Amendment 627 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 15 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Member States may decide not to deleted apply paragraph 2 to third country nationals who have illegally entered the territory of a Member State and who have not subsequently obtained an authorisation or a right to stay in that Member State. In such cases decisions related to return, as referred to in paragraph 1, shall be given by means of a standard form as set out under national legislation. Member States shall make available generalised information sheets explaining the main elements of the standard form in at least five of those languages which are most frequently used or understood by illegal migrants entering the Member State concerned.

Or. en

Justification

All migrants should have access to the information regarding their return and the related

AM\1214327EN.docx 285/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN procedures. This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments on article 7.

Amendment 628 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States may decide not to apply deleted paragraph 2 to third country nationals who have illegally entered the territory of a Member State and who have not subsequently obtained an authorisation or a right to stay in that Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 629 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

In such cases decisions related to return, deleted as referred to in paragraph 1, shall be given by means of a standard form as set out under national legislation.

Or. en

Amendment 630 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall make available deleted generalised information sheets explaining

PE658.738v01-00 286/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN the main elements of the standard form in at least five of those languages which are most frequently used or understood by illegal migrants entering the Member State concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 631 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall make available Member States shall make available generalised information sheets explaining generalised information sheets explaining the main elements of the standard form in the main elements of the standard form in at least five of those languages which are at least five major world languages. most frequently used or understood by illegal migrants entering the Member State concerned.

Or. nl

Justification

It is impossible for a Member State to predict which country will become a major supplier of refugees. Third-country nationals cannot, therefore, assert any rights here either. The amendment creates a predictable workload and therefore an efficient asylum policy based on clear, transparent and fair rules, as expressed in recital 4.

Amendment 632 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

16 Remedies 16 Remedy

Or. nl

AM\1214327EN.docx 287/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Justification

In order to limit the duration of proceedings and prevent a carousel of appeals, there should be only one appeal.

Amendment 633 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The third-country national concerned deleted shall be afforded an effective remedy to appeal against or seek review of decisions related to return, as referred to in Article 15(1), before a competent judicial authority.

Or. en

Amendment 634 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The third-country national concerned shall The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to appeal be afforded an effective remedy to appeal against or seek review of decisions related against or seek review of decisions related to return, as referred to in Article 15(1), to return, as referred to in Article 15(1), before a competent judicial authority. before a competent judicial authority. Member states shall allocate to judicial authorities the capacity required for the proper implementation of this directive, including human resources and training, so as to guarantee the quality and expediency of judicial review

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 288/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 635 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The third-country national concerned deleted shall be granted the right to appeal before a single level of jurisdiction against the return decision where that decision is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in accordance with Regulation EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] that was subject to an effective judicial review in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation.

Or. en

Amendment 636 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 289/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Justification

Amendment 637 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Michal Šimečka

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The third-country national concerned shall The third-country national concerned can be granted the right to appeal before a be granted the right to appeal only before a single level of jurisdiction against the single level of jurisdiction against the return decision where that decision is based return decision where that decision is based on a decision rejecting an application for on a decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in international protection taken in accordance with Regulation EU) …/… accordance with Regulation EU) [Asylum Procedure Regulation] that was …/…[Asylum Procedure Regulation] that subject to an effective judicial review in was subject to an effective judicial review accordance with Article 53 of that in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation. Regulation, only where the full scope of the principle of non-refoulement under European and international law is individually assessed in the asylum procedure.

Or. en

Amendment 638 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The third-country national concerned shall The third-country national concerned shall be granted the right to appeal before one be granted the right to appeal before no level of jurisdiction only against the return more than one level of jurisdiction only decision where that decision is based on a against the return decision,with no decision rejecting an application for possibility of resumption of proceedings,

PE658.738v01-00 290/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN international protection taken in where that decision is based on a decision accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… rejecting an application for international [Asylum Procedure Regulation] that was protection taken in accordance with subject to an effective judicial review in Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation] that was subject to an effective Regulation. judicial review in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation.

Or. nl

Justification

Carousels of appeals should be stopped.

Amendment 639 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The third-country national concerned shall To comply with the principle of an be granted the right to appeal before a effective remedy, the third-country national single level of jurisdiction against the concerned shall be granted the right to return decision where that decision is based appeal before a single level of jurisdiction on a decision rejecting an application for against the return decision where that international protection taken in decision is based on a decision rejecting an accordance with Regulation EU) …/… application for international protection [Asylum Procedure Regulation] that was taken in accordance with Regulation EU) subject to an effective judicial review in …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] that accordance with Article 53 of that was subject to an effective judicial review Regulation. in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation.

Or. en

Amendment 640 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Birgit Sippel, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

AM\1214327EN.docx 291/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 641 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The enforcement of the return decision The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing the appeal at first the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been instance. Should a further appeal against a lodged within the set period, during the first or subsequent appeal decision be examination of the appeal, where there is lodged, and in all other cases, the a risk to breach the principle of non- enforcement of the return decision shall not refoulement. Should a further appeal be suspended. 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.

PE658.738v01-00 292/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Or. fr

Amendment 642 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The enforcement of the return decision The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing the appeal at first the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the set period, during the lodged within the set period, during the examination of the appeal, where there is a examination of the appeal, where there is a risk to breach the principle of non- risk to breach the principle of non- refoulement. Should a further appeal refoulement. The possibility of further against a first or subsequent appeal appeal against an appeal decision is not decision be lodged, and in all other cases, necessary. 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.

Or. nl

Justification

The endless procedures usually only serve to engineer a residence permit based on social ties. Persistence thus leads to unfair results for various candidates for asylum, plus an enormous financial and administrative cost for the Member State.

Amendment 643 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Michal Šimečka

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The enforcement of the return decision The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during shall be automatically suspended during

AM\1214327EN.docx 293/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN the period for bringing the appeal at first the period for bringing an appeal against instance and, where that appeal has been that decision during the examination of the lodged within the set period, during the appeal and until the decision on appeal examination of the appeal, where there is a has been notified to the third country risk to breach the principle of non- national. An appeal against a return refoulement. Should a further appeal decision shall have an automatic against a first or subsequent appeal suspensive effect except in cases where decision be lodged, and in all other cases, judicial authorities have assessed the full the enforcement of the return decision scope of the principle of non-refoulement shall not be suspended unless a court or under European and international law tribunal decides otherwise taking into due and have found that this principle does account the specific circumstances of the not risk to be breached. The enforcement individual case upon the applicant’s of the return decision can also be request or acting ex officio. suspended when a court or tribunal decides to do so, taking into due account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.

Or. en

Justification

The suspensive effect of an appeal against a return decision is crucial, as otherwise there could be an irreversible situation with grave fundamental rights consequences. The only exception to this rule is if the full assessment of the principle of non-refoulement has already been carried out by a judicial authority. Furthermore, a court or tribunal should have the independence to suspend the enforcement of the return decision on other grounds.

Amendment 644 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 294/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN the enforcement of the return decision include instances where there are pending shall not be suspended unless a court or cases before a criminal court, in order to tribunal decides otherwise taking into due ensure access to justice for both victims account the specific circumstances of the and suspects. individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.

Or. en

Amendment 645 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The enforcement of the return decision The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing the appeal at first the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the set period, during the lodged within the set period, during the examination of the appeal, where there is a examination of the appeal, where there risk to breach the principle of non- may be a risk to breach the principle of refoulement. Should a further appeal non-refoulement. Should a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision be lodged, and in all other cases, decision be lodged, and in all other cases, the enforcement of the return decision shall the enforcement of the return decision shall not be suspended unless a court or tribunal not be suspended unless a court or tribunal decides otherwise taking into due account decides otherwise taking into due account the specific circumstances of the individual the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio. ex officio.

Or. en

Amendment 646 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall ensure that a deleted

AM\1214327EN.docx 295/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN decision on the request for temporary suspension of the enforcement of a return decision is taken within 48 hours from the lodging of such a request by the third- country national concerned. In individual cases involving complex issues of fact or law, the time-limits set out in this paragraph may be extended, as appropriate, by the competent judicial authority.

Or. en

Amendment 647 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall ensure that a deleted decision on the request for temporary suspension of the enforcement of a return decision is taken within 48 hours from the lodging of such a request by the third- country national concerned. In individual cases involving complex issues of fact or law, the time-limits set out in this paragraph may be extended, as appropriate, by the competent judicial authority.

Or. en

Justification

The remedy has always a suspensive effect. Thus, it's not necessary to have a decision on the suspension.

Amendment 648 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

PE658.738v01-00 296/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where no relevant new elements or deleted findings have arisen or have been presented by the third-country national concerned which significantly modify the specific circumstances of the individual case, the first and the second subparagraphs of this paragraph shall not apply where: (a) the reason for temporary suspension referred thereto was assessed in the context of a procedure carried out in application of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] and was subject to an effective judicial review in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation; (b) the return decision is the consequence of the decision on ending the legal stay that has been taken following such procedures.

Or. en

Amendment 649 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

AM\1214327EN.docx 297/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN [Asylum Procedure Regulation] and was subject to an effective judicial review in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation; (b) the return decision is the consequence of the decision on ending the legal stay that has been taken following such procedures.

Or. en

Justification

This deletion is the consequence of the amendment on article 16, paragraph 3, subparagraph 1. The remedy has an automatic suspensive effect.

Amendment 650 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where no relevant new elements or Where no relevant new elements or findings have arisen or have been findings have arisen or have been presented by the third-country national presented by the third-country national concerned which significantly modify the concerned which modify the specific specific circumstances of the individual circumstances of the individual case, the case, the first and the second first and the second subparagraphs of this subparagraphs of this paragraph shall not paragraph shall not apply where: apply where:

Or. en

Justification

Appeals should always have a suspensive effect. Having to assess whether new elements have arisen and/or whether suspensive is required or not would again burden Member States’ authorities with having to make that separate assessment. The introduction of the requirement of ‘significant modification’ places too high of a burden on the judicial authorities and risks that individual cases are not properly assessed, thereby producing potential irreversible violations of non-refoulement.

Amendment 651

PE658.738v01-00 298/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall establish reasonable An appeal against a return decision must time limits and other necessary rules to be lodged within 30 days of its notification ensure the exercise of the right to an to the person concerned. Member States effective remedy pursuant to this Article. shall establish other necessary rules to ensure the exercise of the right to an effective remedy pursuant to this Article.

Or. it

Amendment 652 Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Beata Kempa, Patryk Jaki

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall establish reasonable Member States shall establish a time limit time limits and other necessary rules to not exceeding five (5) days and other ensure the exercise of the right to an necessary rules to ensure the exercise of effective remedy pursuant to this Article. the right to an effective remedy pursuant to this Article.

Or. pl

Amendment 653 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall establish reasonable Member States shall establish reasonable time limits and other necessary rules to and sufficient time limits and other ensure the exercise of the right to an necessary rules to ensure the exercise of effective remedy pursuant to this Article. the right to an effective remedy pursuant to this Article.

AM\1214327EN.docx 299/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Or. en

Amendment 654 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall grant a period not deleted exceeding five 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].

Or. en

Amendment 655 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall grant a period not Member States shall grant a period at least exceeding five days to lodge an appeal fifteen days to lodge an appeal against a against a return decision when such a return decision. decision is the consequence of a final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

Or. en

Justification

In light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to an effective remedy in article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (i.e. Jabari v Turkey, para. 40; Muminov v Russia, para. 90), an automatic application of short time- limits for

PE658.738v01-00 300/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN submitting appeals may be at variance with the protection from refoulement

Amendment 656 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall grant a period not Member States shall grant a period exceeding five days to lodge an appeal between ten and fifteen days to lodge an against a return decision when such a appeal against a return decision when such decision is the consequence of a final a decision is the consequence of a final decision rejecting an application for decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation]. [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

Or. en

Justification

The proposed period by the Commission is too short to guarantee the full exercise of the right to lodge an appeal. A period between 10 and 15 days to lodge an appeal is more reasonable and realistic.

Amendment 657 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall grant a period not Member States shall grant a period not exceeding five days to lodge an appeal exceeding 15 days to lodge an appeal against a return decision when such a against a return decision when such a decision is the consequence of a final decision is the consequence of a final decision rejecting an application for decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation]. [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

AM\1214327EN.docx 301/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Or. it

Amendment 658 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall grant a period not Member States shall grant a period not exceeding five days to lodge an appeal exceeding three days to lodge an appeal against a return decision when such a against a return decision when such a decision is the consequence of a final decision is the consequence of a final decision rejecting an application for decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation]. [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

Or. fr

Amendment 659 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall grant a period not Member States shall grant a period not exceeding five days to lodge an appeal exceeding two days to lodge an appeal against a return decision when such a against a return decision when such a decision is the consequence of a final decision is the consequence of a final decision rejecting an application for decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation]. [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to Amendment 12, and supplements it in order to speed up the operation of the courts and tribunals and streamline the return procedure.

PE658.738v01-00 302/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 660 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4a. Member States may provide for administrative review proceedings prior to an appeal before a court or tribunal in accordance with paragraph 1, provided that the administrative review does not adversely affect the efficiency of the remedy.

Or. fr

Amendment 661 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. The third-country national 5. The third-country national concerned shall have the possibility to concerned shall have the possibility to obtain legal advice, representation and, obtain legal advice, representation and where necessary, linguistic assistance. linguistic assistance.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 40.

Amendment 662 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 6

AM\1214327EN.docx 303/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6. Member States shall ensure that the 6. Member States shall ensure that the necessary legal assistance and/or necessary legal assistance and/or representation is granted on request free of representation is granted on request free of charge in accordance with relevant national charge in accordance with relevant national legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and may provide that such free legal assistance may provide that such free legal assistance and/or representation is subject to and/or representation is subject to conditions as set out in Article 15(3) to (6) conditions as set out in Article 15(3) to (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC. of Directive 2005/85/EC. Recognised refugees may be asked to reimburse the cost of legal and linguistic assistance to the Member State.

Or. nl

Justification

The legal costs of free legal aid put enormous pressure on the budget of the justice department. It does not seem unreasonable that those who have benefited directly from this system should compensate the government for it. Refunding the costs of legal and linguistic assistance after recognition ensures fair treatment of all cases, as stated in recital 4.

Amendment 663 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6. Member States shall ensure that the 6. Member States shall ensure that necessary legal assistance and/or legal assistance and/or representation is representation is granted on request free of granted on request free of charge in charge in accordance with relevant national accordance with relevant national legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and legislation or rules regarding legal aid. may provide that such free legal Member States shall inform the third assistance and/or representation is subject country nationals about the possibility to to conditions as set out in Article15(3) to forward such request. (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 40.

PE658.738v01-00 304/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 664 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6. Member States shall ensure that the 6. Member States shall ensure that the necessary legal assistance and/or necessary legal assistance and/or representation is granted on request free of representation is granted on express charge in accordance with relevant national request free of charge in accordance with legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and relevant national legislation or rules may provide that such free legal assistance regarding legal aid, and may provide that and/or representation is subject to such free legal assistance and/or conditions as set out in Article 15(3) to (6) representation is subject to conditions as of Directive 2005/85/EC. set out in Article 15(3) to (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC.

Or. fr

Amendment 665 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Birgit Sippel, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6. Member States shall ensure that the 6. Member States shall ensure that the necessary legal assistance and/or necessary legal assistance and/or representation is granted on request free of representation is granted free of charge in charge in accordance with relevant national accordance with relevant national legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and may provide that such free legal assistance may provide that such free legal assistance and/or representation is subject to and/or representation is subject to conditions as set out in Article15(3) to (6) conditions as set out in Article15(3) to (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC. of Directive 2005/85/EC.

Or. en

Justification

Access to legal aid is crucial to exercise the right of an effective remedy. This amendment is

AM\1214327EN.docx 305/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN linked to recital 21, Article 7 and Article 14.

Amendment 666 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1a. The first paragraph shall also apply to third-country nationals who are staying irregularly and in the respect of whom it is not or it has not been possible to implement a return decision.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 667 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1a. The principles underpinning 1 a. to d. do not exclude this being achieved in police custody.

Or. nl

Justification

In view of the large number of people who abscond, preference should be given in most cases to detention pending repatriation. This amendment is in line with amendment 15 for recital 18 and amendment 17 for recital 22. Police custody cannot be excluded as a means of providing, inter alia , accommodation, medical care and food.

Amendment 668

PE658.738v01-00 306/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 17 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Member States shall provide the 2. Member States shall provide the persons referred to in paragraph 1 with a persons referred to in paragraph 1 and 1a written confirmation in accordance with with a written confirmation in accordance national legislation that the period for with national legislation that the period for voluntary departure has been extended in voluntary departure has been extended in accordance with Article 9(2) or that the accordance with Article 9(2) or that the return decision will temporarily not be return decision will temporarily not be enforced. enforced or it has not been possible to implement a return decision.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 17.1 (a)

Amendment 669 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 18

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

[...] deleted

Or. en

Amendment 670 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Unless other sufficient but less coercive Member States shall never apply coercive measures can be applied effectively in a measures. specific case, Member States may keep in

AM\1214327EN.docx 307/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, in particular when:

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 18 and to recitals 27 and 28.

Amendment 671 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Unless other sufficient but less coercive Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a measures can be applied effectively in a specific case, Member States may keep in specific case, Member States may only detention a third-country national who is keep in detention a third-country national the subject of return procedures in order to who is the subject of return procedures in prepare the return and/or carry out the order to prepare the return and/or carry out removal process, in particular when: the removal process, when:

Or. en

Amendment 672 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 308/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN removal process, in particular when: the removal process when:

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as inextricably linked to other amendments tabled to this Article. The Commission proposal deleted the word "only". Rather, it would be important to have an exhaustive list of grounds for detention, to ensure that detention is only used as a matter of last resort and in well specified cases.

Amendment 673 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Unless other sufficient but less coercive Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a measures can be applied effectively in a specific case, Member States may keep in specific case, Member States shall keep in detention a third-country national who is detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, in particular when: removal process when:

Or. en

Justification

The Article is not correctly aligned with recital 28 on this point where it is explicitly stated that the person under these condition should be kept in detention.

Amendment 674 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) there is a risk of absconding deleted determined in accordance with Article 6;

AM\1214327EN.docx 309/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Or. en

Justification

This amendment is coherent with the deletion of Article 6.

Amendment 675 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) the third-country national deleted concerned avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process; or

Or. en

Justification

This is coherent with the amendment tabled to article 18(1)

Amendment 676 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 677 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c

PE658.738v01-00 310/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

This newly proposed ground by the Commission is not specific enough, as there are no common EU definitions of public policy, public security or national security, and such cases should not be dealt with EU returns law but under existing criminal law or administrative law.

Amendment 678 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) the third-country national (c) the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security. public security or national security on the basis of a conviction or elements that substantiate the assessment that they represent a danger to the public

Or. it

Amendment 679 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) the third-country national (c) the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security. public security or national security or has been convicted of an offence which is punishable by a maximum term of

AM\1214327EN.docx 311/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN imprisonment of at least three years.

Or. en

Justification

The addition of this sentence clarifies that also a criminal act that amounts to a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years for the purposes of this Directive should be a ground for detention of that person. Same applies to other parts of this Directive where this sentence is used.

Amendment 680 Malik Azmani, Olivier Chastel, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) the third-country national (c) the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security. public security or national security, in particular where the third-country national is convicted of a serious crime.

Or. en

Amendment 681 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(c) the third-country national (c) the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, concerned poses a genuine and present public security or national security. risk to public policy, public security or national security.

Or. en

Amendment 682

PE658.738v01-00 312/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

All grounds for detention shall be laid deleted down in national law.

Or. en

Justification

It's up to the Member states to decide which provisions they want to adopt in their national law.

Amendment 683 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

All grounds for detention shall be laid In other cases Member States may keep in down in national law. detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process. All grounds for detention shall be laid down in national law.

Or. en

Justification

Logical consequence of my amendment on the first paragraph of this article, in order to clarify when detention should be done and when this may be done.

Amendment 684 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

AM\1214327EN.docx 313/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Any detention shall be for as short a period Any detention shall be a measure of last as possible and only maintained as long as resort to be applied when measures other removal arrangements are in progress and than detention are not available, and for executed with due diligence. as short a period as possible and only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.

Or. it

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to the amendment proposed by the Commission to paragraph (c) of Article 18.

Amendment 685 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Any detention shall be for as short a Detention shall be maintained for at least period as possible and only maintained as as long as removal arrangements are in long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence. progress and executed with due diligence.

Or. fr

Amendment 686 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Detention shall never be used for unaccompanied minors or families with minors.

PE658.738v01-00 314/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Or. it

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to the amendment proposed by the Commission to paragraph (c) of Article 18.

Amendment 687 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The maximum period of detention must be between three and six months; it may be extended once only for a maximum period of a further six months.

Or. it

Amendment 688 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Detention shall be ordered by Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. administrative or judicial authorities at the same time as the return decision.

Or. nl

Justification

A situation in which different judges are caught up in dealing with each individual decision more than once should be avoided. This amendment is necessary in order to achieve an effective return policy, as expressed in recital 3. The original text leaves open the possibility of multiple proceedings.

Amendment 689

AM\1214327EN.docx 315/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) or grant the third-country national (b) or grant the third-country national concerned the right to take proceedings by concerned the right to take proceedings by means of which the lawfulness of detention means of which the lawfulness of detention shall be subject to a speedy judicial review shall be subject to a speedy judicial review to be decided on as speedily as possible to be decided on as speedily as possible after the launch of the relevant after the launch of the relevant proceedings. In such a case Member States proceedings. In such a case Member States shall immediately inform the third-country shall immediately inform the third-country national concerned about the possibility of national concerned about the possibility of taking such proceedings. taking such proceedings, and provide to this purpose for legal and linguistic assistance, free of charge.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 40.

Amendment 690 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. In every case, detention shall be deleted reviewed at reasonable intervals of time either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. In the case of prolonged detention periods, reviews shall be subject to the supervision of a judicial authority.

Or. fr

PE658.738v01-00 316/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

This amendment is necessary to ensure consistency with the amendments to Article 18 – paragraph 5 and Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2.

Amendment 691 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. In every case, detention shall be 3. If a Member State decides to apply reviewed at reasonable intervals of time detention, in every case, detention shall be either on application by the third-country reviewed at reasonable and regular national concerned or ex officio. In the intervals of time either on application by case of prolonged detention periods, the third-country national concerned or ex reviews shall be subject to the supervision officio. Reviews shall be subject to the of a judicial authority. supervision of a judicial authority.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to other amendments tabled to this article and to recitals 27 and 28.

Amendment 692 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. Detention shall be maintained for 5. If a Member State chooses to apply as long a period as the conditions laid detention, the Member State shall set down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is a limited period of detention, which shall necessary to ensure successful removal. not exceed two weeks. Each Member State shall set a maximum period of detention of not less than three months and not more than six months.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 317/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 693 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. Detention shall be maintained for as 5. Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal. necessary to ensure successful removal. Each Member State shall set a maximum Each Member State shall set a maximum period of detention of not less than three period of their choosing. months and not more than six months.

Or. fr

Amendment 694 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. Detention shall be maintained for as 5. Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal. necessary to ensure successful removal. Each Member State shall set a maximum Each Member State shall set a limited period of detention of not less than three period of detention of maximum 2 months. months and not more than six months.

Or. en

Justification

According to NGOs and international organizations, it's absolutely not proven that the longer the detention is, the higher the effective returns rates are. According to EPRS substitute impact assessment, “In France 80% of the removals occurred before the twenty-fifth day in detention. Hence, it is often not necessary to prolong detention because it does not contribute to removal. Extending detention under such circumstances is not cost-effective”.

PE658.738v01-00 318/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 695 Nadine Morano, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. Detention shall be maintained for as 5. Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal. necessary to ensure successful removal. Each Member State shall set a maximum Each Member State shall set a maximum period of detention of not less than three period of detention of not less than three months and not more than six months. months and not more than 12 months.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment seeks to cover situations such as those referred to in Amendment 5, which it supplements. It is also closely linked to Amendment 2, as some return procedures cannot be completed because the maximum period of detention is too short.

Amendment 696 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. Detention shall be maintained for as 5. Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal. necessary to ensure successful removal. Each Member State shall set a maximum Each Member State shall set a limited period of detention of not less than three period of detention which may not exceed months and not more than six months. three months.

Or. en

Justification

As various sources, including the EP impact assessment, have shown, ever longer detention

AM\1214327EN.docx 319/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN periods have a limited impact on returns effectively happening. In light of the severe risks to human rights violations, detention can be imposed, but only accompanied by judicial review.

Amendment 697 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6. Member States may not extend the deleted period referred to in paragraph 5 except for a limited period not exceeding a further twelve months in accordance with national law in cases where regardless of all their reasonable efforts the removal operation is likely to last longer owing to: (a) a lack of cooperation by the third- country national concerned, or (b) delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment is necessary to ensure consistency with the amendments to Article 18 – paragraph 5 and Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2.

Amendment 698 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

PE658.738v01-00 320/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN operation is likely to last longer owing to: (a) a lack of cooperation by the third- country national concerned, or (b) delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to other amendments tabled to this article and to recitals 27 and 28.

Amendment 699 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 6 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6. Member States may not extend the 6. Member States may not extend the period referred to in paragraph 5 except for period referred to in paragraph 5 except for a limited period not exceeding a further two consecutive times of each a limited twelve months in accordance with national period not exceeding each a further 3 law in cases where regardless of all their months in accordance with national law, reasonable efforts the removal operation is and always after judicial review, in cases likely to last longer owing to: where regardless of all their reasonable efforts the removal operation is likely to last longer owing to:

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled on Article 18, paragraph 5. It would make possible a total detention period of up to 9 months, with the appropriate safeguards of judicial review included.

Amendment 700 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 6 – introductory part

AM\1214327EN.docx 321/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6. Member States may not extend the 6. Member States may not extend the period referred to in paragraph 5 except for period referred to in paragraph 5 except for a limited period not exceeding a further a limited period not exceeding a further twelve months in accordance with national four months in accordance with national law in cases where regardless of all their law in cases where regardless of all their reasonable efforts the removal operation is reasonable efforts the removal operation is likely to last longer owing to: likely to last longer owing to:

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is linked to the amendments on Article 18 paragraph 5.

Amendment 701 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 6 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(b) delays in obtaining the necessary deleted documentation from third countries.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled on Article 18, paragraph 5.

Amendment 702 Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Beata Kempa, Patryk Jaki

Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

6 a. 7. Member States may detain a third-country national for a second time

PE658.738v01-00 322/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN despite having made use of the period provided for in paragraph 6 if, after his or her release from detention, circumstances arise which make it possible to enforce a return decision previously issued in relation to that third-country national. The new period of detention shall not exceed 30 days.

Or. pl

Amendment 703 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 19 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Detention shall take place as a rule 1. If a Member State chooses to apply in specialised detention facilities. Where a detention as last resort, detention shall Member State cannot provide take place as a rule in specialised, open accommodation in a specialised detention detention facilities. The specialised facility and is obliged to resort to prison detention facilities shall offer dignified accommodation, the third-country conditions of detention respecting nationals in detention shall be kept fundamental rights of the third-country separated from ordinary prisoners. nationals detained. Staff employed in the specialised detention facilities shall be properly trained and qualified. Third country nationals shall never be detained in prison accommodation or police cells.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to recital 27.

Amendment 704 Monika Hohlmeier

Proposal for a directive Article 19 – paragraph 1

AM\1214327EN.docx 323/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Detention shall take place as a rule 1. Detention shall take place under in specialised detention facilities. Where a specialised detention conditions, where Member State cannot provide third-country nationals in detention shall be accommodation in a specialised detention kept separated from ordinary prisoners. facility and is obliged to resort to prison accommodation, the third-country nationals in detention shall be kept separated from ordinary prisoners.

Or. en

Justification

Instead of focusing on the spatial separation of detention facilities from ordinary prison facilities, it would be more practical and effective to emphasise the need for special detention conditions compared to ordinary prison conditions. This amendment is necessary as it relates to the internal logic of the text regarding the procedures for detention as laid down in Article 18 and to avoid absconding as laid down in Article 6.

Amendment 705 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 19 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Third-country nationals in detention 2. Third-country nationals in detention shall be allowed — on request — to shall be allowed — on request — to establish in due time contact with legal establish since the first day of detention representatives, family members and contact with legal representatives, family competent consular authorities. members and competent consular authorities.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 4.

Amendment 706 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive

PE658.738v01-00 324/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Article 19 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Particular attention shall be paid to 3. Particular attention shall be paid to the situation of vulnerable persons. the situation of persons in a vulnerable Emergency health care and essential situation. Emergency health care and treatment of illness shall be provided. treatment of illness shall be promptly provided.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 38 and Article 14.

Amendment 707 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 19 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Relevant and competent national, 4. Relevant and competent national, international and non-governmental international and non-governmental organisations and bodies shall have the organisations and bodies, as well as possibility to visit detention facilities, as journalists and members of national and referred to in paragraph 1, to the extent that European parliaments, shall have the they are being used for detaining third- possibility to visit detention facilities, as country nationals in accordance with this referred to in paragraph 1, to the extent that Chapter. Such visits may be subject to they are being used for detaining third- authorisation. country nationals in accordance with this Chapter. Unannounced visits shall be made possible.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 10.

Amendment 708 Pietro Bartolo

AM\1214327EN.docx 325/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Proposal for a directive Article 19 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Relevant and competent national, 4. Relevant and competent national, international and non-governmental international and non-governmental organisations and bodies shall have the organisations and bodies shall have the possibility to visit detention facilities, as possibility to visit detention facilities, as referred to in paragraph 1, to the extent that referred to in paragraph 1, to the extent that they are being used for detaining third- they are being used for detaining third- country nationals in accordance with this country nationals in accordance with this Chapter. Such visits may be subject to Chapter. Such visits may be subject to authorisation. authorisation. Under no circumstances may such visits be restricted or prohibited.

Or. it

Justification

Access to detention facilities must always be guaranteed. This amendment is linked to amendments tabled by the rapporteur to Article 18 and to recitals 27 and 28.

Amendment 709 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 19 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Relevant and competent national, 4. Relevant and competent national, international and non-governmental international organisations and bodies shall organisations and bodies shall have the have the possibility to visit detention possibility to visit detention facilities, as facilities, as referred to in paragraph 1, to referred to in paragraph 1, to the extent that the extent that they are being used for they are being used for detaining third- detaining third-country nationals in country nationals in accordance with this accordance with this Chapter. Such visits Chapter. Such visits may be subject to may be subject to authorisation. authorisation.

Or. nl

Justification

NGOs lack any democratic legitimacy or control. Moreover, it is unclear who is appropriating the title and on what grounds, thus acquiring special prerogatives on that

PE658.738v01-00 326/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN basis. Control of the executive should be exercised by the legislature or by an international organisation recognised by the government of the Member State. The original text refers to relevant and competent national, international and non- governmental organisations and bodies. Non-governmental organisations do not meet the cumulative condition of relevance and competence and therefore cannot be included in this list.

Amendment 710 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 19 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. Third-country nationals kept in 5. Third-country nationals kept in detention shall be systematically provided detention shall be systematically provided with information which explains the rules with information which explains the rules applied in the facility and sets out their applied in the facility and sets out their rights and obligations. Such information rights and obligations, in a language they shall include information on their understand. Such information shall include entitlement under national law to contact information on their entitlement under the organisations and bodies referred to in national law to contact the organisations paragraph 4. and bodies, as well as journalists and members of national and European parliaments referred to in paragraph 4.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 10.

Amendment 711 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 20

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 20 deleted Detention of minors and families 1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained as a

AM\1214327EN.docx 327/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. 2. Families detained pending removal shall be provided with separate accommodation guaranteeing adequate privacy. 3. Minors in detention shall have the possibility to engage in leisure activities, including play and recreational activities appropriate to their age, and shall have, depending on the length of their stay, access to education. 4. Unaccompanied minors shall as far as possible be provided with accommodation in institutions provided with personnel and facilities which take into account the needs of persons of their age. 5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of minors pending removal.

Or. it

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to the amendment proposed by the Commission to paragraph (c) of Article 18.

Amendment 712 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

20 Detention of minors and families 20 Prohibition of detention of minors and families

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40.

PE658.738v01-00 328/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Amendment 713 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – title

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

20 Detention of minors and families 20 Minors and families

Or. en

Justification

This amendments is linked to the amendments on Article 20 paragraph 1.

Amendment 714 Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Unaccompanied minors and 1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained families with minors who are subject of as a measure of last resort and for the return procedures in order to prepare the shortest appropriate period of time. return and/or carry out the removal process shall only be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time and only after having specifically verified that no other less coercive measure is available. Young children shall be detained in specialized facilities and not be detained in a prison accommodation. By derogation of article 18, paragraph 5, Member states may include shorter periods of detention for minors in their national legislation.

Or. en

Justification

The ECHR notes that according to a well-established case-law, as a matter of principle, the confinement of young children in prison-like structures should be avoided and that only short-

AM\1214327EN.docx 329/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN term placement under suitable conditions could be compatible with the Convention provided that it is a measure of last resort and only after having specifically verified that no other less coercive measure is available. As the EC proposal is touching upon the grounds of detention it is important to clarify the rules and safeguards regarding minors as well.

Amendment 715 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Hilde Vautmans, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Michal Šimečka

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Unaccompanied minors and 1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained families with minors shall not be detained as a measure of last resort and for the and will be provided with adequate, shortest appropriate period of time. humane and non-custodial alternatives to detention when in the best interest of the child and where necessary to guarantee their protection.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 28. Detention of children should be abolished, as it runs inherently counter to the best interest of the child.

Amendment 716 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Unaccompanied minors and 1. Minors and families with minors families with minors shall only be detained shall not be detained. as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 330/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40 as well as to Article 18.

Amendment 717 Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Hilde Vautmans

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Unaccompanied minors and 1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained families with minors shall not be detained. as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendment tabled to recital 28. Detention of minors is never in their best interests, including when family units are available. A ban on detention of children should therefore be imposed to protect minors. The application of the concept of ‘best interests of the child’ moreover entails that parents or legal or customary primary caregivers should never be detained either. See e.g. ECtHR- Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar v. Malta, Application No. 25794/13 and 28151/13, 22 February 2017.

Amendment 718 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Birgit Sippel, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Unaccompanied minors and 1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained families with minors shall never be as a measure of last resort and for the detained. shortest appropriate period of time.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 331/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Justification

The detention of minors is never in their best interests. It's sustained by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, UN Committee on Migrant Workers, UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants. Member states have the possibility to find alternatives measures such as open centres to ensure the return of unaccompanied minors, and minors with their families, after the assessment of their best interests.

Amendment 719 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. Unaccompanied minors and 1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained families with minors shall be repatriated as a measure of last resort and for the as a matter of priority in order to reduce shortest appropriate period of time. the period of detention.

Or. nl

Justification

We need to strike the right balance between an efficient asylum system and respect for the rights of those concerned. The Commission’s original text runs counter to the objectives of an efficient asylum policy as expressed in recital 3.

Amendment 720 Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Hilde Vautmans

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Families detained pending deleted removal shall be provided with separate accommodation guaranteeing adequate privacy.

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 332/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

Amendment 721 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Hilde Vautmans, Olivier Chastel, Michal Šimečka

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Families detained pending removal 2. Member States shall therefore shall be provided with separate establish appropriate care arrangements accommodation guaranteeing adequate and accommodate minors and families privacy. with minor children. Appropriate care arrangements and reception measures for minor children and their families shall be community based, the least intrusive possible and respect the right to privacy and family life. These care arrangements should provide for personnel and facilities which take into account the needs of persons their age. Minors shall have the possibility to engage in leisure activities, including play and recreational activities appropriate to their age, and shall have, depending on the length of their stay, access to education. Unaccompanied minors shall as far as possible be provided with accommodation in institutions provided with personnel and facilities which take into account the needs of persons of their age.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 333/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 28. Instead of detention, minors and families with minor children should be provided with appropriate care arrangements.

Amendment 722 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Families detained pending removal 2. Pending removal, unaccompanied shall be provided with separate and separated minors and children with accommodation guaranteeing adequate their families shall be provided with privacy. adequate alternatives to detention. Minors shall not be separated from their parents or from their legal or customary primary caregivers during the procedure, through the detention or removal of a parent or a caregiver. Families shall be kept together, unless the child's safety would be at risk. This includes implementing or exploring alternatives to detention for the whole family and protecting parents from removal while the procedure is ongoing. Where needed, appropriate care and accommodation arrangements that enable children and families to live together in communities shall be implemented.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40, and Article 18.

Amendment 723 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 2

PE658.738v01-00 334/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

2. Families detained pending removal 2. Pending removal families and shall be provided with separate unaccompanied minors shall be provided accommodation guaranteeing adequate with alternative measures to detention, privacy. with separate accommodation guaranteeing adequate privacy.

Or. en

Justification

The detention of minors is never in their best interests. Member states have the possibility to find alternatives measures such as open centres to ensure the return of unaccompanied minors, and minors with their families, after the assessment of their best interests. This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments on Article 20 paragraph 1.

Amendment 724 Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Hilde Vautmans

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Minors in detention shall have the deleted possibility to engage in leisure activities, including play and recreational activities appropriate to their age, and shall have, depending on the length of their stay, access to education.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 725

AM\1214327EN.docx 335/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40.

Amendment 726 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Olivier Chastel, Hilde Vautmans

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recital 28. As children should not be detained, this provision should be deleted. These provisions are however included in the proposals for an amended Article 20(2).

Amendment 727

PE658.738v01-00 336/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Minors in detention shall have the 3. Minors shall have the possibility to possibility to engage in leisure activities, engage in leisure activities, including play including play and recreational activities and recreational activities appropriate to appropriate to their age, and shall have, their age, and shall have, depending on the depending on the length of their stay, length of their stay, access to education. access to education.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 728 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Hilde Vautmans, Olivier Chastel

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Unaccompanied minors shall as deleted far as possible be provided with accommodation in institutions provided with personnel and facilities which take into account the needs of persons of their age.

Or. en

Justification

AM\1214327EN.docx 337/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Amendment 729 Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Abir Al-Sahlani

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 730 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Or. en

PE658.738v01-00 338/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40.

Amendment 731 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. Unaccompanied minors shall as 4. Minors shall be provided with far as possible be provided with accommodation in institutions provided accommodation in institutions provided with personnel and facilities which take with personnel and facilities which take into account the needs of persons of their into account the needs of persons of their age. age.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 732 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. The best interests of the child shall deleted be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of minors pending removal.

Or. en

AM\1214327EN.docx 339/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to recitals 28 and 40.

Amendment 733 Saskia Bricmont, Pietro Bartolo, Tineke Strik, Karen Melchior, Brando Benifei, Hilde Vautmans

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. The best interests of the child shall deleted be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of minors pending removal.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 734 Nadine Morano (PPE)

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. The best interests of the child shall 5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of minors pending removal. the detention of minors pending removal. They may not constitute, by themselves, an obstacle to detention.

Or. fr

PE658.738v01-00 340/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Justification

This amendment is closely linked to Amendment 23, which it supplements.

Amendment 735 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Michal Šimečka

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. The best interests of the child shall 5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of minors pending removal. alternatives to detention for minors pending removal.

Or. en

Amendment 736 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 20 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. The best interests of the child shall 5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context be a primary consideration in all of the detention of minors pending situations. removal.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 737 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

AM\1214327EN.docx 341/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Proposal for a directive Article 21

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 21 deleted Emergency situations 1. In situations where an exceptionally large number of third-country nationals to be returned places an unforeseen heavy burden on the capacity of the detention facilities of a Member State or on its administrative or judicial staff, such a Member State may, as long as the exceptional situation persists, decide to allow for periods for judicial review longer than those provided for under the third subparagraph of Article 18(2) and to take urgent measures in respect of the conditions of detention derogating from those set out in Articles 19(1) and 20(2). 2. When resorting to such exceptional measures, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission. It shall also inform the Commission as soon as the reasons for applying these exceptional measures have ceased to exist. 3. Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted as allowing Member States to derogate from their general obligation to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of their obligations under this Directive.

Or. en

Amendment 738 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa

Proposal for a directive Article 21 – paragraph 1

PE658.738v01-00 342/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

1. In situations where an exceptionally 1. In situations where an exceptionally large number of third-country nationals to large number of third-country nationals to be returned places an unforeseen heavy be returned places an unforeseen heavy burden on the capacity of the detention burden on the capacity of the detention facilities of a Member State or on its facilities of a Member State or on its administrative or judicial staff, such a administrative or judicial staff, such a Member State may, as long as the Member State may, for a period of exceptional situation persists, decide to maximum three months, decide to allow allow for periods for judicial review longer for periods for judicial review longer than than those provided for under the third those provided for under the third subparagraph of Article 18(2) and to take subparagraph of Article 18(2) and to take urgent measures in respect of the urgent measures in respect of the conditions of detention derogating from conditions of detention derogating from those set out in Articles 19(1) and 20(2). those set out in Articles 19(1) and 20(2). The Member States shall, within three months, and under coordination by the Commission and EU Agencies, take all necessary measures to ensure adequate capacity.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments tabled to Article 16(4) regarding time limits for judicial review. Although Member States could find themselves in emergency situations, this should be addressed within 3 months by ensuring adequate capacity.

Amendment 739 Laura Ferrara, Sabrina Pignedoli

Proposal for a directive Article 22

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

[...] deleted

Or. it

Amendment 740 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia

AM\1214327EN.docx 343/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Donáth

Proposal for a directive Article 22

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

[...] deleted

Or. en

Justification

The proposal of the Commission for the border procedure in this context is problematic as this is linked to unclear outcome of the potential negotiations of the Asylum Procedures Regulation. The APR is appropriate legislative act to address possible border procedures.

Amendment 741 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 22

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

[...] deleted

Or. en

Amendment 742 Sylvie Guillaume, Tanja Fajon, Pietro Bartolo, Dietmar Köster, Birgit Sippel, Domènec Ruiz Devesa

Proposal for a directive Article 22

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

[...] deleted

Or. en

Justification

Without a decision on this issue in APR, which codifies all the provisions on the border procedure and especially the safeguards, it is nearly impossible to amend Article 22, without

PE658.738v01-00 344/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN risking having breaches on fundamental rights.

Amendment 743 Monika Hohlmeier

Proposal for a directive Article 22 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Return decisions issued in return 3. In the context of procedures carried procedures carried out in accordance with out in accordance with paragraph 1 of this paragraph 1 of this Article shall be given Article, Member States shall issue: by means of a standard form as set out under national legislation, in accordance with Article 15(3). (a) either a return decisions given by means of a standard form as set out in the annex, or (b) a refusal of entry, in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation 2016/399; paragraph 4-8 shall not apply in this case. Member States shall issue one of the decisions referred to in this paragraph as soon as possible, where possible under national law together with the decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].

Or. en

Amendment 744 Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Beata Kempa, Patryk Jaki

Proposal for a directive Article 22 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

3. Return decisions issued in return 3. Return decisions issued in return procedures carried out in accordance with procedures carried out in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article shall be given paragraph 1 of this Article may be given by

AM\1214327EN.docx 345/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN by means of a standard form as set out means of a standard form as set out under under national legislation, in accordance national legislation, in accordance with with Article 15(3). Article 15(3).

Or. pl

Amendment 745 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 22 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

4. A period for voluntary departure 4. A period for voluntary departure shall not be granted. Member States shall shall not be granted. Member States shall however grant an appropriate period for however in exceptional circumstances voluntary departure in accordance with grant an appropriate period for voluntary Article 9 to third-country nationals holding departure in accordance with Article 9 to a valid travel document and fulfilling the third-country nationals holding a valid obligation to cooperate with the competent travel document and fulfilling the authorities of the Member States at all obligation to cooperate with the competent stages of the return procedures established authorities of the Member States at all in accordance with paragraph 7. Member stages of the return procedures established States shall require the third-country in accordance with paragraph 7. Member nationals concerned to hand over the valid States shall require the third-country travel document to the competent authority nationals concerned to hand over the valid until departure. travel document to the competent authority until departure.

Or. nl

Justification

It should be emphasised that compulsory return is the rule.

Amendment 746 Tom Vandendriessche, Nicolas Bay

Proposal for a directive Article 22 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. Member States shall grant a period 5. Member States shall grant a period

PE658.738v01-00 346/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN of time not exceeding 48 hours to lodge an of time not exceeding 48 hours to lodge an appeal against the return decisions based appeal against the return decisions, which on a final decision rejecting an application shall always be issued at the same time as for international protection taken by virtue the final decision rejecting an application of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… for international protection taken by virtue [Asylum Procedure Regulation] at the of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… border or in transit zones of the Member [Asylum Procedure Regulation] at the States. border or in transit zones of the Member States.

Or. nl

Justification

Administrative simplification. Only one decision needs to be taken and potentially challenged.

Amendment 747 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 22 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

5. Member States shall grant a period 5. Member States shall grant a period not exceeding 48 hours to lodge an appeal not exceeding 24 hours to lodge an appeal against the return decisions based on a final against the return decisions based on a final decision rejecting an application for decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] at the [Asylum Procedure Regulation] at the border or in transit zones of the Member border or in transit zones of the Member States. States.

Or. fr

Amendment 748 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

AM\1214327EN.docx 347/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The enforcement of a return decision deleted during the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the period established, during the examination of the appeal, shall be automatically suspended where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement and one of the following two conditions applies: (a) new elements or findings have arisen or have been presented by the third- country national concerned after a decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], which significantly modify the specific circumstances of the individual case; or (b) the decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation(EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] was not subject to an effective judicial review in accordance with Article 53 of that Regulation.

Or. fr

Amendment 749 Tom Vandendriessche

Proposal for a directive Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(a) new elements or findings have (a) sufficiently serious new elements arisen or have been presented by the third or findings have arisen or have been country national concerned after a decision presented by the third-country national rejecting an application for international concerned after a decision rejecting an protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of application for international protection Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation Regulation], which significantly modify (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure the specific circumstances of the individual Regulation], which significantly modify

PE658.738v01-00 348/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN case; or the specific circumstances of the individual case and which could not in any way have already been brought to the knowledge of the third-country national concerned; or

Or. nl

Justification

A situation where elements already in existence – but yet to be raised by the person concerned – are introduced in stages, in order to prolong the procedure, should be avoided.

Amendment 750 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Where a further appeal against a first or Should a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged, and subsequent appeal decision be lodged, and in all other cases, the enforcement of the in all other cases, the enforcement of the return decision shall not be suspended return decision shall not be suspended. unless a court or tribunal decides otherwise taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.

Or. fr

Amendment 751 Nicolas Bay, Harald Vilimsky, Jaak Madison, Laura Huhtasaari, Jean-Paul Garraud, Mara Bizzotto, Peter Kofod

Proposal for a directive Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Detention shall be for as short a period as Detention shall be maintained for at least possible, which shall in no case exceed as long as removal arrangements are in four months. It may be maintained only as progress and executed with due diligence.

AM\1214327EN.docx 349/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.

Or. fr

Amendment 752 Sophia in 't Veld, Yana Toom, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Anna Júlia Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Olivier Chastel, Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a directive Article 23 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

The Commission shall report every three The Commission shall report every three years to the European Parliament and the years to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive Council on the application of this Directive in the Member States and, if appropriate, in the Member States and, if appropriate, propose amendments. propose amendments. Such report shall be accompanied by a full Commission impact assessment of the transposition and implementation of this Directive by each Member States.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment is needed as it is inextricably linked to amendments to Article 6 and other new Articles that entail changes of which the impact should be assessed. The Commission did unfortunately not do an impact assessment when proposing this recast, and the Parliament had to commission one itself. A full impact assessment of these changes is needed, as it a full monitoring should rely on proper data and findings.

Amendment 753 Nadine Morano, Balázs Hidvéghi, Paulo Rangel

Proposal for a directive Article 24 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Article 24a When the third country is considered not to be cooperating sufficiently with

PE658.738v01-00 350/351 AM\1214327EN.docx EN Member States with regard to readmission, Article 25(1)(a) of the Visa Code shall apply.

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment is closely linked to Amendment 8, which it supplements.

Amendment 754 Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Proposal for a directive Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

Member States shall bring into force the Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with provisions necessary to comply with Articles 6 to 10, Articles 13 and 14(3), Articles 2 to 4, Articles 7 to 13, Article Article 16, Article 18 and Article 22 by 14(3), Articles 15 and 16, Articles 18 to 20 [six months after the day of entry into by [six months after the day of entry into force] and with Article 14(1) and (2) by force] and with Article 14(1) and (2) by [one year after the day of entry into force]. [one year after the day of entry into force]. They shall immediately communicate the They shall immediately communicate the text of those measures to the Commission. text of those measures to the Commission.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment ensures coherence with the other amendments tabled by the shadow rapporteur.

AM\1214327EN.docx 351/351 PE658.738v01-00 EN