BETA

16 Amendments of Auke ZIJLSTRA related to 2018/0329(COD)

Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
(3) On 28 June 2018, in its 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 policyllegal immigrants.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a directive
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, in particular when the third-country national poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security, and when he/she has been convicted for a criminal offence, even with a non- definitive sentence. 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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a directive
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 thirty 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, or they have been convicted for a criminal offence, even with a non-definitive sentence. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 197 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) In cases where the principle of non- refoulement is not at stake, appeals against a return decision should not have an automatic suspensive effect. The judicial authorities should be able to temporarily suspend the enforcement of a return decision in individual cases for other reasons, either upon request of the third- country national concerned or acting ex officio, where deemed necessary. Such decisions should, as a rule, be taken within 48 hours. Where justified by the complexity of the case, judicial authorities should take such decision without undue delay.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 224 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
(28) Detention should be imposed, following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national 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, or when he/she has been convicted for a criminal offence, even with a non- definitive sentence.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 237 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
(30) This Directive should not preclude Member States from laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties and criminal penalties, including imprisonment, in relation to the infringements of immigration 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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a directive
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 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 foursix 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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 284 #
Proposal for a directive
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 llegal immigration and represents an important reason of substantial public interest.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 308 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
9a. 'principle of non-refoulement' means the prohibition of expulsion or return according to Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 321 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least one of the following criteria:
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 351 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) existence of conviction for a criminal offence, even with a non- definitive sentence, including for a serious criminal offence in another Member State;
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 370 #
Proposal for a directive
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 (k), (l), (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 387 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the duty to remain presenton call and available throughout the procedures;
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 462 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)
(ca) where a conviction for a criminal offence exists, even with a non-definitive sentence, including for a serious criminal offence in another Member State;
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 500 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States may impose an entry or stay 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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 567 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) the return decision is the consequence of the decision on ending the legal stay that is aggravated by at least one of the following circumstances: - risk of absconding; - application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded; - the third-country national poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE