BETA
Home MEPs Dossiers Committees Subjects Blog About Dumps

159 Amendments of Dietmar KÖSTER related to 2018/0329(COD)

Amendment 122 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Title 1
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegalrregularly staying third-country nationals (recast) A contribution from the European Commission to the Leaders’ meeting in Salzburg on 19-20 September 2018
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 129 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
(4) That European return policy should be based on common standards, for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity, as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations. Clear, transparent and fair rules need to be established to provide for an effective European return policy which serves as a deterrent to irregular migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 136 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) Member States should ensure that the ending of illegalrregular stay of third- country nationals is carried out through a fair and transparent procedure. According to general principles of EU law, decisions taken under this Directive should be adopted on a case-by-case basis and based on objective criteria, implying that consideration should go beyond the mere fact of an illegalrregular stay. When using standard forms for decisions related to return, namely return decisions and, if issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal, Member States should respect that principle and fully comply with all applicable provisions of this Directive.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 139 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
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. 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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 144 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) Member States should ensure that the ending of illegalrregular stay of third- country nationals is carried out through a fair and transparent procedure. According to general principles of EU law, decisions taken under this Directive should be adopted on a case-by-case basis and based on objective criteria, implying that consideration should go beyond the mere fact of an illegalrregular stay. When using standard forms for decisions related to return, namely return decisions and, if issued, entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal, Member States should respect that principle and fully comply with all applicable provisions of this Directive.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 145 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
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. 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.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 148 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) It is recognised that it is legitimate for Member States to return illegalrregularly staying third-country nationals, provided that fair and efficient asylum systems are in place which fully respect the principle of non-refoulement.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 150 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) In accordance with Council Directive 2005/85/EC12 , a third-country national who has applied for asylum in a Member State should not be regarded as staying illegalrregularly on the territory of that Member State until a negative decision on the application, or a decision ending his or her right of stay as asylum seeker has entered into force. __________________ 12Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13).
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 157 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
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 to the access to programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 160 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) It is recognised that it is legitimate for Member States to return illegalrregularly staying third-country nationals, provided that fair and efficient asylum systems are in place which fully respect the principle of non-refoulement.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 163 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) In accordance with Council Directive 2005/85/EC12 , a third-country national who has applied for asylum in a Member State should not be regarded as staying illegalrregularly on the territory of that Member State until a negative decision on the application, or a decision ending his or her right of stay as asylum seeker has entered into force. _________________ 12Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13).
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 165 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
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 Voluntary return should always be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of thirty days should be granted. Member States should be able to decide to grandt an appropria shorter period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should beminimum 7 days and exceptionally not to granted. A 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 agenuine and present risk to public policy, public 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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 171 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
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 to the access to programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 172 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
(14) In order to promote voluntary return, Member States should have operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, which mayshould 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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 178 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
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 following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 182 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
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 his or her individual situation examined and decided upon by a judicial authority in the context of the asylum procedure.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 189 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
(14) In order to promote voluntary return, Member States should have operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, which mayshould 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.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 193 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
(18) An appeal against a return decision should always have an automatic suspensive effect only in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non- refoulement.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 198 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
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 202 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 206 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
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 his or her individual situation examined and decided upon by a judicial authority in the context of the asylum procedure.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 207 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
(21) The necessary legal aid should be made available , upon requestfree of charge, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish a list of instances where legal aid is to be considered necessarylegal aid.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 210 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
(22) The situation of third-country nationals who are staying illegalrregularly but who cannot yet be removed should be addressed. Their basic conditions of subsistence should be defined according to national legislation. In order to be able to demonstrate their specific situation in the 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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 214 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
(25) When an illegally staying third- 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 return decision in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third- country national concerned.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 217 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
(18) An appeal against a return decision shouldall always have an automatic suspensive effect only in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non- refoulement.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 219 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
(27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be limited, always used at last resort and subject to the principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued. 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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 221 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
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 decisio be taken without undue delay.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 227 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 228 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
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.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 230 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
(29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not sufficientThe maximum period of detention should be two months, which may be prolonged, no more than two ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention between three and six months, which may be prolonged, should be establishedtimes, which means up to a maximum period of six months, 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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 233 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
(21) The necessary legal aid should be made available , upon requestfree of charge, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish a list of instances where legal aid is to be considered necessarylegal aid.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 234 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
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 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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 239 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
(22) The situation of third-country nationals who are staying illegalrregularly but who cannot yet be removed should be addressed. Their basic conditions of subsistence should be defined according to national legislation. In order to be able to demonstrate their specific situation in the 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.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 244 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
(32) Without prejudice to the possibility 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 and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the whole process.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 244 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
(25) When an illegally staying third- 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 return decision in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third- country national concerned.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 255 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
(34) For a rapid treatment of the case, 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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 259 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
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 procedure.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 265 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
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 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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 272 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
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 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.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 273 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 a (new)
(38a) Union 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).
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 276 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
(40) The Union provides financial and operational support in order to achieve an effective implementation of this Directive. Member States should make best use of the available Union financial instruments, programmes and projects in the field of return, in particular under Regulation (EU) …/… [Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund], as well as of the operational assistance by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency according to Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation]. Such support should be used in particular for establishing return management systems and programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance to support the return – and where relevant the reintegration – of illegalrregularly staying third- country nationals.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 283 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
(46) The purpose of an effective and dignified 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 interestonents of the European migration policy.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 285 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Recital 47
(47) Member States' return authorities need to process personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return procedures and the successful enforcement of return decisions. The third countries of return are often not the subject of adequacy decisions adopted by the Commission under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , or under Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/68019 , and have often not concluded or do not intend to concludeand have often not concluded a readmission agreement with the Union or otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within the meaning of the national provisions transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of the Union in cooperating with the main countries of origin of illegally staying third-country nationals subject to an obligation to return, it is not always possible to ensure such third countries systematically fulfil the obligation established by international law to readmit their own nationals. 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 not 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) 2016/680to authorities of third countries. __________________ 18Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1). 19Directive (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).
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 286 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
(32) Without prejudice to the possibility 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 and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the whole process.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 289 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Directive sets out common standards and procedures to be applied in Member States for returning illegalrregularly staying third- country nationals, in accordance with fundamental rights as general principles of Union law as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 290 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive applies to third- country nationals staying illegalrregularly on the territory of a Member State.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 293 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2
2. ‘illegalrregular stay’ means the presence on the territory of a Member State, of a third- country national who does not fulfil, or no longer fulfils the conditions of entry as set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 or other conditions for entry, stay or residence in that Member State;
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 298 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
(b) a country of transit in accordance with Union or bilateral readmission agreements or other arrangements, or
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 298 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
(34) For a rapid treatment of the case, 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.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 301 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
4. ‘return decision’ means an administrative or judicial decision or act, stating or declaring the stay of a third- country national to be illegalrregular and imposing or stating an obligation to return;
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 304 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
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 procedure.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 309 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
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 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.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 336 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Recital 47
(47) Member States' return authorities need to process personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return procedures and the successful enforcement of return decisions. The third countries of return are often not the subject of adequacy decisions adopted by the Commission under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , or under Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/68019 , and have often not concluded or do not intend to concludeand have often not concluded a readmission agreement with the Union or otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within the meaning of the national provisions transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of the Union in cooperating with the main countries of origin of illegally staying third-country nationals subject to an obligation to return, it is not always possible to ensure such third countries systematically fulfil the obligation established by international law to readmit their own nationals. 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 not 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) 2016/680to authorities of third countries. _________________ 18Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1). 19Directive (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).
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 342 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Directive sets out common standards and procedures to be applied in Member States for returning illegalrregularly staying third- country nationals, in accordance with fundamental rights as general principles of Union law as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 343 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive applies to third- country nationals staying illegalrregularly on the territory of a Member State.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
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
(a) are subject to a refusal of entry in 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;deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 349 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2
2. ‘illegalrregular stay’ means the presence on the territory of a Member State, of a third- country national who does not fulfil, or no longer fulfils the conditions of entry as set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 or other conditions for entry, stay or residence in that Member State;
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 363 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
4. ‘return decision’ means an administrative or judicial decision or act, stating or declaring the stay of a third- country national to be illegalrregular and imposing or stating an obligation to return;
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 375 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – title
Obligation to cCooperateion
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 377 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall impose on third-country nationals the obligation to cooperate withfacilitate the cooperation between third-country nationals and the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. That obligation shall include the following in particular:All information on the procedure shall be given to the third country nationals in a language which they understand.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 380 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the dutyThird country nationals cooperate to provide all the elements that are necessary for establishing or verifying identity;
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 384 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the duty to provide information on the third countries transideleted;
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 388 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the duty to remain present andThird country nationals remain available throughout the procedures;
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 391 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 392 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Birgit SIPPEL, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
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 leastexclusively include the following criteria:
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 396 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) lack of documentation proving the identity;deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 398 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The elements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third- country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession regarding the identity, nationality or nationalities, age, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 399 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 401 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) lack of financial resources;deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 403 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) illegal entry into the territory of the Member States;deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 407 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) unauthorised movement to the territory of another Member Stadelete;d
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 411 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Chapter 2 – title
TERMINATION OF ILLEGALRREGULAR STAY
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 413 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall issue a return decision to any third-country national staying illegalrregularly on their territory, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 413 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i
(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;
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 414 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point j
(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;deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 415 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Third-country nationals staying illegalrregularly 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 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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 417 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. Member States may refrain from issuing a return decision to a third-country national staying illegalrregularly on their territory if the third-country national concerned is taken back by another Member State under bilateral agreements or arrangements existing on 13 January 2009. In such a case the Member State which has taken back the third-country national concerned shall apply paragraph 1.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 419 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may at any moment 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 illegalrregularly 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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 420 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
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;deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 421 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5. If a third-country national staying illegalrregularly 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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 423 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point n
(n) opposing violently or fraudulently the return procedures;deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 424 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point o
(o) not complying with a measure aimed at preventing the risk of absconding referred to in Article 9(3);deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 425 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Member States shallmay issue a return 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].
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 426 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point p
(p) not complying with an existing entry ban.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 438 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty 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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 441 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – title
Obligation to cCooperateion
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 445 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall impose on third-country nationals the obligation to cooperate withfacilitate the cooperation between third-country nationals and the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. That obligation shall include the following in particular:All information on the procedure shall be given to the third country nationals in a language which they understand.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 448 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Member States shall notmay grant a period for voluntary departure of no less than seven days and exceptionally refrain from granting a period ofor voluntary departure in following cases :
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 450 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the dutyThird country nationals cooperate to provide all the elements that are necessary for establishing or verifying identity;
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 452 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) where there is a risk of absconding determined in accordance with Article 6 ;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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 453 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
(b) the duty to provide information on the third countries transideleted;
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 457 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) where the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 460 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the duty to remain present andThird country nationals remain available throughout the procedures;
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 465 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
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.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 469 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take all 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 illegalrregularly staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 472 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The elements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third- country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession regarding the identity, nationality or nationalities, age, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 479 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Caterina CHINNICI, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – title
Return and removal of unaccompanied minors
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 484 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Before deciding to issue a return 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 interests of the child.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 487 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Chapter 2 – title
TERMINATION OF ILLEGALRREGULAR STAY
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 491 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall issue a return decision to any third-country national staying illegalrregularly on their territory, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 492 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Return decisions shallmay be accompanied by an entry ban:
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 493 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Third-country nationals staying illegalrregularly 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 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.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 496 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. Member States may refrain from issuing a return decision to a third-country national staying illegalrregularly on their territory if the third-country national concerned is taken back by another Member State under bilateral agreements or arrangements existing on 13 January 2009 . In such a case the Member State which has taken back the third-country national concerned shall apply paragraph 1.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 497 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 500 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may at any moment 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 illegalrregularly 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.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 502 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5. If a third-country national staying illegalrregularly 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.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 504 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
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 genuine and serious threat to public policy, public security or national security.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 506 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Member States shallmay issue a return 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].
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 510 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall set up, operate, maintain and further develop a national return management system, 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, including reintegration in the country of return.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 515 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. The national system shall be set up 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].deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 517 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national legislation, for the purpose of supporting the return of illegalrregularly staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130 . __________________ 30Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 521 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Such assistance mayshall include support for reintegration in the third country of return.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 523 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty 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.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 525 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
The granting of such assistance, 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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 534 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall provide, upon request, a written or oral translation of the main elements of decisions related to return, as referred to in paragraph 1, including information on the available legal remedies in a language the third- country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 536 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. Member States may decide not to 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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 536 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) where an application for legal stay has been dismissed as manifestly unfounded or fraudulent;deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 537 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Member States may decide not to 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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 539 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) where the third-country national concerned poses a genuine and present risk to public policy, public security or national security.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 540 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 546 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The third-country national concerned 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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 551 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take all 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 illegalrregularly staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 553 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the set period, during the examination of the appeal, where there is a risk to breach the principle of non- refoulement. Should a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision be lodged, and in all other cases, the enforcement of the return decision shall not be suspended unless a court or tribunal decides otherwise taking into due account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio, during the examination of the appeal and until the decision on the appeal has been notified to the applicant.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 561 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall ensure that a 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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 563 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Where no relevant new elements or 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) 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) consequence of the decision on ending the legal stay that has been taken following such procedures.deleted the reason for temporary the return decision is the
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 567 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – title
12 Return and removal of unaccompanied minors
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 574 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall grant a period not exceeding fiveof at least fifteen 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].
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 576 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Before deciding to issue a return 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 interests of the child.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 581 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case, Member States may only keep in 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:
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 588 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
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.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 590 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) the third-country national concerned poses a genuine and present risk to public policy, public security or national security.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 597 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
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 maximumlimited period of detention of not less than three months and not more than sixmaximum two months.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 600 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. Member States may not extend the period referred to in paragraph 5 except for a limited period not exceeding a further twelvefour 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:
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 609 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – title
20 Detention of mMinors and families
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 611 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national legislation, for the purpose of supporting the return of illegalrregularly staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130 . _________________ 30Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 612 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of timenever be detained.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 615 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Such assistance mayshall include support for reintegration in the third country of return.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 617 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 2
2. Families detained pending removal shall be providedPending removal families and unaccompanied minors shall be provided with alternative measures to detention, with separate accommodation guaranteeing adequate privacy.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 619 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
The granting of such assistance, 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.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 622 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 3
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.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 626 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 4
4. Unaccompanied minors shall as far as possibleMinors shall be provided with accommodation in institutions provided with personnel and facilities which take into account the needs of persons of their age.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 626 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall provide, upon request, a written or oral translation of the main elements of decisions related to return, as referred to in paragraph 1, including information on the available legal remedies in a language the third- country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 627 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. Member States may decide not to 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.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 629 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 5
5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of minors pending removalall situations.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 635 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 22
22 [...]deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 636 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The third-country national concerned 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.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 638 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Dietmar KÖSTER
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall establish return procedures applicable to illegalrregularly staying third-country nationals subject to an obligation to return following a decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
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
The enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the period for bringing the appeal at first instance and, where that appeal has been lodged within the set period, during the examination of the appeal, where there is a risk to breach the principle of non- refoulement. Should a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision be lodged, and in all other cases, the enforcement of the return decision shall not be suspended unless a court or tribunal decides otherwise taking into due account the specific circumstances of the individual case upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio, during the examination of the appeal and until the decision on the appeal has been notified to the applicant.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 647 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall ensure that a 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.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 649 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Where no relevant new elements or 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.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 655 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall grant a period not exceeding fiveat least fifteen 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].
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 665 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Birgit SIPPEL, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 6
6. Member States shall ensure that the necessary legal assistance and/or representation is granted on request free of charge in accordance with relevant national legislation or rules regarding legal aid, and may provide that such free legal assistance and/or representation is subject to conditions as set out in Article15(3) to (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 682 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
All grounds for detention shall be laid down in national law.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 713 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – title
20 Detention of mMinors and families
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 718 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Birgit SIPPEL, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of timenever be detained.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 727 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 3
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.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 731 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 4
4. Unaccompanied minors shall as far as possibleMinors shall be provided with accommodation in institutions provided with personnel and facilities which take into account the needs of persons of their age.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 736 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 5
5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of minors pending removalall situations.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 742 #
Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tanja FAJON, Pietro BARTOLO, Dietmar KÖSTER, Birgit SIPPEL, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Proposal for a directive
Article 22
[...]deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
@parltrack
@parltrack@eupolicy.social
[javascript protected email address]
code AGPLv3.0+
data ODBLv1.0
site content CC-By-Sa-3.0

ParlTrack - 2011-2024

© European Union, 2011 – Source: European Parliament
Hosted by AS250.net Foundation