45 Amendments of Jussi HALLA-AHO related to 2018/0329(COD)
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The link between the decision on 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, including in the border procedure.
Amendment 160 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear responsibilities for third-country nationals should be established, and in particular the obligation to cooperate with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure, including by providing the information and elements that are necessary in order to assess their individual situation. 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 an entry ban, and to the access to programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance. The length of the entry ban should normally be no less than five years.
Amendment 168 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirtyen days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third- country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. AIn exceptional cases where the prospect of voluntary return is high, an extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding five days should be granted to appeal against a return decision. This provision should only apply once following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review, against which there has been an opportunity to appeal.
Amendment 186 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The appeal against a return 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 the opportunity to have his or her individual situation examined and decided upon by a judicial authority in the context of the asylum procedure.
Amendment 191 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) An appeal against a return decision should have an automatic suspensive effect only in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement. The return decision is enforceable once the period for lodging an appeal has lapsed and in case of an appeal, after the assessment of the risk to breach the principle of non- refoulement is done and where it is found that there is no such a risk.
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) To improve the effectiveness of return procedures and avoid unnecessary delays, without negatively affecting the rights of the third-country nationals concerned, the enforcement of the return decision should not be automatically suspended in cases where the assessment of the risk to breach the principle of non- refoulement already took place and judicial remedy was effectively exercised as part of the asylum procedure carried out prior to the issuing of the related return decision against which the appeal is lodged, unless the situation of the third- country national concerned would have significantly changed since.
Amendment 222 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Detention should always be imposed, following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security. During the detention all the assets of the person concerned should be frozen. For the sake of national finances, the persons detained should be required to pay back, whenever possible, and to contribute to their upkeep by having daily household duties at the detention facilities.
Amendment 233 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, an initial maximum period of detention between three and six months, which may be prolonged, should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.
Amendment 236 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) This Directive should not preclude Member States fromshould laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties and criminal penalties, including imprisonment, in relation to the infringements of migration rules, with the aim of, among other things, persuading third-country nationals to return and third countries to comply with their duty to take back their citizens, 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.
Amendment 256 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) For a rapid treatment of the case, a maximum time limit is to be granted to appeal once against a return decision following a decision rejecting an application for international protection adopted under the border procedure and which became finagainst which there has been an opportunity to appeal.
Amendment 262 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) An appeal against a return 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 procedurebe examined within a week from the appeal and should only have suspensive effect in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non- refoulement.
Amendment 266 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) It is necessary and proportionate 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 mayshould 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. T 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 may be ordered under another provision of this Directive and for the duration provided for therein.
Amendment 282 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) The purpose of an effective implementation of the return of third- country nationals who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in the Member States, in accordance with this Directive, is an essential component of the comprehensive efforts to tackle irregular migration and represents an important reason of substantial public interest. A systematic exploration of possibilities for cooperation with third countries as recipients of returnees is therefore necessary. Even a temporary willingness of a third country, be it the country of origin or other third country, to accept returnees from the Union should be the Member States´ priority as a means to achieving the objective of improved return rates.
Amendment 355 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point m
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point m
(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, or having provided false verbal information;
Amendment 369 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
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 (f), (g), (h), (j), (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.
Amendment 394 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the duty to lodge to the competent authorities of third countries a request for obtaining a valid travel document and a written request to be admitted to the country of return.
Amendment 420 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 5
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5. If a third-country national staying illegally on the territory of a Member State is the subject of a pending procedure for renewing his or her residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay, that Member State shall consider refraining from issuing a return decision, until the pending procedure is finished, without prejudice to paragraph 6.
Amendment 424 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall issue a return decision immediately after or together with 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]. A decision ending a legal stay of a third-country national and/or a return decision and/or a decision on a removal and/or entry ban may be adopted in a single administrative or judicial decision or act.
Amendment 437 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirtyen days, without prejudice to the exception referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an 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.
Amendment 466 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. The fact that a period for voluntary departure has not been granted shall not preclude voluntary return of the person concerned.
Amendment 498 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, Member States shall impose an entry ban of a nationally authorised maximum length in cases referred to in paragraph 1 or if a risk referred to in Article 9(4) has arisen during the period for voluntary departure or an obligation to cooperate referred to in Article 7 has not been complied with or the person represents a threat to public policy, public security or national security. 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.
Amendment 520 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 528 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
The granting of such assistance, including its kind and extent, shall be subject to the compliance with the obligation to return within the period for voluntary departure, if granted, the gravity of the reasons for not granting a period for voluntary departure and 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.
Amendment 544 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The third-country national concerned 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 authoritor administrative authority or a competent impartial body.
Amendment 549 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The third-country national concerned shall only 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.
Amendment 551 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. The judicial authority or body mentioned in paragraph 1 shall have the power to review decisions related to return, as referred to in Article 15(1), including the possibility of temporarily suspending their enforcement due to the risk of a breach of the principle of non- refoulement.
Amendment 556 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the set period, during the examination of twhe appeal, wthere there is a risk to breach the principle of non- refoulement and when such a risk exists, pending the outcome of the appeal. Should a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision be lodged, and in all other cases, the enforcement of the return decision shall not be suspended unless a court or tribunal decides otherwise taking into due account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.
Amendment 560 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 565 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 568 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall establish reasonable time limits and other necessary rules to ensure the exercise of the right to an effective remedy pursuant to this Article. Member States shall allow third country nationals to rely on changes in circumstances occurred after the adoption of the return decision which may have a significant bearing on the assessment of their situation only once.
Amendment 573 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall grant a period not 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]. The authority or body mentioned in paragraph 1 shall examine the appeal within two weeks from when the appeal is lodged.
Amendment 589 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security in which case the person concerned shall, without exception, be detained until his or her removal.
Amendment 591 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
All grounds for detention shall be laid down in national law. Detention shall be obligatory at least when one of the conditions in points (a), (b) or (c) of this paragraph applies. The third-country national concerned shall be detained immediately after the issuance of the return decision as a precautionary measure in preparation for the return.
Amendment 595 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 5
Article 18 – paragraph 5
5. Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal. Each Member State shall set a maximum initial period of detention of not less than three12 months and not more than six months24 months, without prejudice to paragraph 1 point c of this Article.
Amendment 641 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 5
Article 22 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall grant a period not exceeding 48 hours to lodge an appeal once against the return decisions based on a final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation] at the border or in transit zones of the Member States against which there has been an opportunity to appeal.
Amendment 642 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The enforcement of a return decision 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 suspendedwhether there is a risk of breach of the principle of non- refoulement shall be suspended. The appeal shall be examined within a week from when it was lodged and shall only have suspensive effect in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non- refoulement and one of the following two conditions applies :.
Amendment 643 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Amendment 644 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 645 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is 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 account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.
Amendment 646 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 647 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1
In order to prepare the return or carry out the removal process, or both, Member States mayshall keep in detention a third- country national who has been detained in accordance with point (d) of Article 8(3) of Directive (EU) …/… [recast Reception Condition Directive] in the context of a procedure carried out by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], and who is subject to return procedures pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter.
Amendment 648 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 650 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3