BETA

78 Amendments of Laura FERRARA related to 2018/0329(COD)

Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
(2) An effective and fair return policyThe external borders of the Member States are the borders of the Union. A joint return policy that is both effective and respectful of the rights of illegally staying migrants is an essential part of the Union’s approach to better manage migration in all aspects, as reflected in the European Agenda on Migration of May 201511. _________________ 11 11 COM(2015)285.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
(3) On 28 June 2018, in its conclusions, the European Council underlined the necessityThe rate of return of migrants in irregular situations in the Union remains too low. As stressed by the European Council on 28 June 2018, in its conclusions, it is necessary to adopt an effective and coherent European return policy with a view to significantly stepping up the effective return of irregular migrants, and welcomed the intention of the Commission to make legislative proposals for a more effective and coherent European return policy through the improvement of return and readmission procedures, including through the conclusion of new bilateral readmission agreements and by ensuring that existing agreements are fully applied.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) The implementation of joint awareness-raising campaigns in third countries on the risks inherent in irregular migration and on the Union’s return policy should be strengthened.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) The need for Union andMember States and the Union should conclude further bilateral readmission agreements with third countries to facilitate the return process is underlined. A lack of these agreements is the main reason why numbers for the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the Union are low. International cooperation with countries of origin at all stages of the return process is a prerequisite to achieving sustainable return.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 150 #
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.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 151 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
(11) To ensure clearer and more effective rules for granting a period for voluntary departure and detaining a third- country national, determining whether there is or there is not a risk of absconding should be based on Union- wide objective criteria. Moreover this Directive should set out specific criteria which establish a ground for a rebuttable presumption that a risk of absconding exists.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 161 #
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, includingthird-country nationals should bye providing the information and elements that ared with the necessary in forder to assess their individual situation. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that third-comation on the voluntary return process, the period allowed for voluntary nationals are informed of the consequences of not complying wdeparture and the possibilithy those obligations, in relao impose detention toin 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 assistancevent that the third- country national poses a risk to security and public order in cases clearly determined by law, and on access to programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance. The possibility of voluntary return should be clearly pointed out to third-country nationals applying for international protection right at the start of the asylum procedure.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 166 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third- country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. 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 169 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
(11) To ensure clearer and more effective rules for granting a period for voluntary departure and detaining a third- country national, determining whether there is or there is not a risk of absconding should be based on Union-widesolely on objective criteria. Moreover laid down by this Directive shouland sdet out specific criteria which establish a ground for a rebuttable presumption that a risk of absconding existsermined by a judicial or administrative authority following consideration of the individual circumstances of the case.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to 30 days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted where it has been assessed that third- country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security within the meaning of this Directive or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security, duly evidenced either by a conviction or by elements that substantiate the assessment that they represent a danger to the public. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 192 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14 a (new)
(14a) Member States shall ensure that third-country nationals receive information on the return procedure in a language that they understand. In the case of vulnerable persons, in particular unaccompanied minors, this information shall be supplied in a manner that is appropriate to the unaccompanied minor’s age and ability to understand, including by using multimedia formats.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 202 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) The deadline for lodging an judicial 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. A limit of 30 days should be granted from notification of the return decision in which to appeal against the decision. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding five15 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.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 218 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
(27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be subject to the risk a third-country national poses to security or public order and always be subject to the principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and the objectives pursued. Detention is justified only to and geared towards prepareing the return or to carry out the removal process and if the application of less coercive measures would not be sufficient.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 225 #
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 third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 235 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
(21) The necessary legal aid should be made available free of charge, upon request, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish a list of instances where legal aid is to be considered necessary.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 242 #
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 247 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
(33) To ensure effective return in the context of the border procedure, a period for voluntary departure should not be granted. However, a period for voluntary departure should be granted to third- country nationals who hold a valid travel document and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. In such cases, to prevent absconding, third-country nationals should hand over the travel document to the competent authority until their departure.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
(27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be considered a measure of last resort and subject to the principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued. Preference should be given to alternatives to detention. The detention of unaccompanied minors or families with minors should never be possible. Detention is justified only to prepare the return or carry out the removal process and if the application of less coercive measures would not be sufficient.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 252 #
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 257 #
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 259 #
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,ithin the meaning of this Directive or when the third- country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 263 #
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 267 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
(29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention between three and six months, which may be prolonged once only for a maximum of a further six months, should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 274 #
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 283 #
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), if a border procedure is applied in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation], a specific border procedure should follow for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals whose application for international protection under that asylum border procedure has been rejected in order to ensure direct complementarity between the asylum and return border procedures and prevent gaps between the procedures. In such cases, it is necessary to establish specific rules that ensure the coherence and synergy between the two procedures and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the whole process.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 288 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
(33) To ensure effective return in the context of the border procedure, a period for voluntary departure should not be granted. However, a period for voluntary departure should be granted to third- country nationals who hold a valid travel document and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. In such cases, to prevent absconding, third-country nationals should hand over the travel document to the competent authority until their departure.deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 295 #
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 #
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 308 #
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 324 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. TBy the objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least the following criteriais meant:
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 325 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) lack of documentation proving the identity;deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 329 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 332 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
(46) The purpose of an effective implementation of the return of third- country nationals who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in the Member States, in accordance with this Directive, is an essential component of the comprehensive efforts to tackle irregular migration and represents an important reason of substantial public interest. element of an overall approach to migration, combining more effective control of the Union’s external borders, reinforcement of external action and the internal dimension.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 333 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) lack of financial resources;deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) illegal entry into the territory of the Member States;deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 341 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) unauthorised movement to the territory of another Member Stadelete;d
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 344 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) being subject of a return decision issued by another Member State;deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 344 #
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 345 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) non-compliance with a return decision, including with an obligation to return within the period for voluntary departure;deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 346 #
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;deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 350 #
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
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 367 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 367 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7
7. ‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of reasons in an individual case which are based on objective criteria defined by lawthis Directive to believe that a third- country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond;
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 385 #
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 394 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least the following criteriaare as follows:
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 395 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) lack of documentation proving the identity;deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 400 #
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, and the country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 400 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) lack of financial resources;deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 405 #
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 410 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) being subject of a return decision issued by another Member State;deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 412 #
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;deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 415 #
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 416 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) existence of conviction for a criminal offence, including for a serious criminal offence in another Member State, where the sentence has not been fully served;
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 425 #
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 433 #
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 exceptions 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 applicationThe minimum duration of such a period may not be less than 15 days.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 437 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (m), (n), (o) and (po) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 443 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall provide the necessary information on the possibility for third-country nationals to return voluntarily if they have been found to be irregularly staying on national territory or while irregularly crossing an internal or external border or if they have arrived on the territory of a Member State following rescue operations at sea. That information shall cover programmes offering logistical or financial assistance and other types of material assistance, including support for reintegration in countries of origin, the time-frames for the procedure, the related obligations, and the consequences of non-compliance.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 445 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. Certain obligations aimed at avoiding the risk of absconding, such as regular reporting to the authorities, deposit of an adequate financial guarantee, submission of documents or the obligation to stay at a certain place or the submission of documents, may be imposed for the duration of the period for voluntary departure.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 455 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the duty to provide information on the third countries transideleted;
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 477 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) technical reasons, such as lackthe lack of bilateral readmission agreements or of transport capacity, or failure of the removal due to lack of identification.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 519 #
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 exceptions 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 and of the voluntary return programmes available in a language which the illegally staying third-country national understands, in sufficient time to enable them to exercise the rights guaranteed by this Directive.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 527 #
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 574 #
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, in the presence of the appointed guardian and with due consideration being given to the best interests of the child.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 592 #
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, up to a maximum of five years. It may however exceed five years if the third- country national represents a serious threat to public policy, public security or national security where this has been duly proven either by a conviction or by other objective elements that may be deduced from the circumstances of the case.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 613 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. UFor unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained as a measure of last resort analternatives to detention shall be provided for the shortest appropriate period of time.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 614 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 2
2. Families detained pending removal shall be provided with separate accommodation guaranteeing adequate privacy.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 620 #
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.deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 625 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 4
4. Unaccompanied minors shall, as far as possibleappropriate, be provided with faccommodation in institutions provided with personnel and facilities whichilities and assisted by personnel, takeing into account the needs of persons of their age.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 630 #
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 detentiontreatment of minors pending removal.
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 633 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22
22 [...]deleted
2019/02/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 651 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
An appeal against a return decision must be lodged within 30 days of its notification to the person concerned. Member States shall establish reasonable time limits and other necessary rules to ensure the exercise of the right to an effective remedy pursuant to this Article.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 657 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall grant a period not exceeding five15 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 678 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) the third-country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security. on the basis of a conviction or elements that substantiate the assessment that they represent a danger to the public
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 684 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Any detention shall be a measure of last resort to be applied when measures other than detention are not available, and for as short a period as possible and only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 686 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Detention shall never be used for unaccompanied minors or families with minors.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 687 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 b (new)
The maximum period of detention must be between three and six months; it may be extended once only for a maximum period of a further six months.
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 711 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20
Detention of minors and families 1. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. 2. Families detained pending removal shall be provided with separate accommodation guaranteeing adequate privacy. 3. Minors in detention shall have the possibility to engage in leisure activities, including play and recreational activities appropriate to their age, and shall have, depending on the length of their stay, access to education. 4. Unaccompanied minors shall as far as possible be provided with accommodation in institutions provided with personnel and facilities which take into account the needs of persons of their age. 5. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of minors pending removal.Article 20 deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 739 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22
[...]deleted
2020/09/28
Committee: LIBE