34 Amendments of Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE related to 2019/2208(INI)
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the twofoldprimary objective of the directive is effective return in line with fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality; whereas in its recommendation on making returns more effective,; welcomes the Commission's focuses on the rate of returns as the primary indicator of the directive’s effectiveness;
Amendment 32 #
Da. whereas, according to IOM data, around 81,000 African migrants returned to their home nation with the aid of the UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) and that such Joint initiative which costed the European Union €357 million was to be considered largely a failure1a; _________________ 1a https://www.euronews.com/2020/06/19/pa ying-for-migrants-to-go-back-home-how- the-eu-s-voluntary-return-scheme-is- failing-the-de
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates the importance of an evidence-based approach to guide coherent policy-making and well-informed public discourse and calls on the Commission to encourage and support Member States to collect and publish qualitative and quantitative data on the implementation of the directive;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes also that, based on figures provided by the EPRS, there were, for example, 511047 illegal border crossings in 2016 and 204734 in 2017; considers that given the nature of illegal border crossings, the real figure is presumably much higher; notes that according to EUROSTAT figures from 2019 only a fraction of those ordered to leave actually returned; notes further that the potential repeated counting of persons ordered to leave several times, whether by different Member States or not, does nothing to reduce the problem but rather illustrates the problems with the current return policy;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Notes that in the period November 2017 to 2019, FRONTEX repatriated only 171 people with charter flights at a total cost of EUR 1 380 7541 a; notes further that these figures show that a return policy is virtually non-existent at EU level; _________________ 1a figures based on the reply by Frontex of 12 May 2020 to parliamentary question E-1507/2020 by Filip De Man MEP
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the Commission’s statement that the return rate decreased from 46 % in 2016 to 37 % in 2017 may not present the full picture, as people who received a return decision were not necessarily returned within the same year, some Member States issue more than one return decision to one person, or to people whose whereabouts are unknown, and return decisions are not withdrawn if the return does not take place owing to difficulties in cooperation with third countries or for humanitarian reasons; recognises, on the other hand, that potential double counting in relation to several return decisions does not reduce the problem, but merely illustrates the problems with the return policy;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. StExpresses thaconcerns about the Commission’s statement that the return rate decreased from 46 % in 2016 to 37 % in 2017 may not present the full picture, as people who received a return decision were not necessarily returned within the same year, some Member States issue more than one return decision to one person, or to people whose whereabouts are unknown, and return decisions are not withdrawnas the effective return of third- country nationals who do not have a right to stay ifn the return does not take place owing to difficulties in cooperation with third countries or for humanitarian reasonsUnion is an essential component of an effective asylum policy;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the importance of improving the effective implementation of the directive; highlights that such effectiveness should not only be measured in quantitative terms by referring to the return rate, but also in qualitative terms, such as the sustainability of returns and fundamental rights;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the importance of ensuring compliance with return decisions and recalls the key principle enshrined in the directive that voluntary returns should be prioritised over forced returns; stresses equally that an effective return policy is essential to keep migration manageable;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the importance of ensuring compliance with return decisions and recalls the key principle enshrined in the directive that voluntary returns should be prioritised over forced returnsat voluntary returns should be proposed as a way to avoid unnecessary retention or detention period;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights that under Article 7 of the directive, a return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure, which Member States have to extend where necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case; stresses that a relatively short period for voluntary departure may hinder or altogether prevent voluntary departure;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that a broad definition of the risk of absconding may lead tohelp Member States frequently refraining from granting a period for voluntary departureto manage returns more efficiently; recalls that lifting the voluntary departure period also leads to the imposition of an entry ban, which may further undermine voluntary departure;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that return and entry-ban decisions on removal should be individualised, clearly justified with reasons in law and in fact, issued in writing, and complete with information about available remediesshould be swift and effective;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that the directive allows for the temporary suspension of the enforcement of a removal, pending a decision relating to return; underlines the importance of such suspensive effect in cases where there is a risk of refoulement; notes that in most countries, appeal against return is not automatically suspensive, which may diminish protection and increase administrative burdens; notes, however, that most countries only attempt to enforce returns in the event of imminent danger to public order; points out that the procedure is often exhausted or repeated endlessly so as to obtain a residence permit after all; notes that children are conceived during on-going procedures and are subsequently used to invoke humanitarian grounds to obtain a residence permit.
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that the directive allows for the temporary suspension of the enforcement of a removal, pending a decision relating to return; underlines the importance of such suspensive effect in cases where there is a risk of refoulement; notes that in most countries, appeal against return is not automatically suspensive, which may diminish protection and increase administrative burdens;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Regrets, however, that once a safe return becomes possible, most Member States often do not replace provisional residence permits with mandatory orders to return; regrets further that, as a result, a temporary residence permit is, de facto, often assimilated to a permanent residence permit;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes with concernWelcomes the widespread automatic imposition of entry bans, which in some Member States are enforced alongside voluntary departure; stresses that this approach risks reducing incentives to comply with a return decision;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Is aware that imposing entry bans is necessary in order to stop a carousel of applications, refusals and orders to leave the territory in the different Member States; notes that this results in an enormous administrative burden for the Member States concerned and perpetuates the legal uncertainty of those concerned; considers that the persons concerned are thus not encouraged to build a future in their country of origin;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that although the threat of imposition of an entry ban may serve ais an incentive to leave a country within the time period of voluntary departure, once imposed, entry bans actually reduce the incentive to comply with a return decision and may increase the risk of absconding;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Recognises that the imposition of entry bans together with orders to leave the territory constitute a necessary two- pronged approach; recognises further that that where this would discourage the person concerned from returning voluntarily, their forced return would be in accordance with Article 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Considers that the failure to comply with an order to leave the territory voluntarily in and of itself constitutes an objective criterion to decide that there is a risk of absconding;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. NoteRecalls that the directive establishes that returnees may lawfully be detained where other less coercive measures cannot be applied; expresses regret that despite the obligation to apply detention as a measure of last resort, in practice, very few viable alternatives to detention are developed and applied by Member States; calls on Member States, as a matter of urgency, to offer viable community-based alternatives to detention;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that the directive establishes that returnees may lawfully be detained where other less coercive measures cannot be applied; expresses regret that despite the obligation to apply detention as a measure of last resort, in practice, very few viablecriticises the fact that, even after repeated failures to comply with an order to leave the territory, only in extremely exceptional circumstances are such orders enforced; notes that, given that those concerned have no prospect of a permanent residence permit, reception in the community is no alternatives to detention are developed and applied by Member States; calls on Member States, as a matter of urgen; notes that this last option is only chosen by returnees in order to demonstrate by means of sheer obduracy, to offer viable community-based alternatives to detentionhat they are integrated into the community, for example because they have children in school, and so ultimately obtain a permanent residence permit;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that a significant number of children are still detained in the European Union as part of return procedures, which constitutes a direct violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has clarified that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests; is aware that these rights have a perverse effect in that parents are encouraged to send their children in advance to the desired country of migration; considers that as a result minors are exposed to greater danger during their journey to and stay in the country of arrival; maintains that it is in the interest of all children to discourage this form of child abuse by parents as much as possible; is also aware that adults often pretend to be minors in order to invoke children's rights;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that a significant number of alleged children are still detained in the European Union as part of return procedures, which constitutes a direct violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has clarified that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests; stresses that there should be mandatory procedures to detect adults pretending to be children, such as bone age assessments or dental age assessments, in order to be able to put more focus on real children’s best interest;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on Member States to ensure the proper implementation of the directive in all its aspects; calls on the Commission to continue monitoring this implementation and take action in the event of non- compliance;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to ensureonsiders that is the responsibility of thate Member States and Frontex have monitoring bodies in place that are supported by a proper mandate, capacity and competence, a high level of independence and expertise, and transparent procedures; urges the Commission to ensure the establishment of a post-return monitoring mechanism to understand the fate of returned persons, with particular attention for unaccompanied minto enforce the legislation and to ensure the actual return of persons who have been ordered to leave the territorsy;
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Maintains that after arrival in their home countries, returnees are no longer the responsibility of the EU and the Member States but of their countries of origin; maintains further that development aid should be withheld from countries which refuse to take responsibility for their subjects;