Activities of Tineke STRIK related to 2019/2208(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Implementation of the Return Directive (short presentation)
Reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of the Return Directive
Amendments (16)
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas in September 2018, without carrying out an impact assessment, the Commission presented a proposal to recast the Directive to achieve a more effective and coherent return policy;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. RNotes with concern the lack of available data, including of data disaggregated by gender and age, concerning the implementation of the Directive; reiterates the importance of an evidence-based approach to guide coherent policy-making and well-informed public discourse and calls on the Commission to urge and support Member States to collect and publish qualitative and quantitative data on the implementation of the directive, particularly covering data on entry bans and detention, as these are the categories currently not collected by Eurostat;
Amendment 78 #
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, as voluntary returns tend to be more sustainable, less costly and cumbersome for states, and more apt to respect the fundamental rights of the person concerned;
Amendment 102 #
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 of between 7 and 30 days, 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 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Welcomes the provisions, in several Member States, which allow for the individual circumstances to duly be taken into account to grant the extension of a period for voluntary departure;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Is concerned about the unintended negative effects of provisions requiring returnees to request a period of voluntary departure, instead of such period being granted by the competent authorities;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Recalls that, in cases where the Directive requires Member States to postpone the removal, such as when it would violate the principle of non- refoulement, Article 14(2)of the Directive requires Member States to provide the persons concerned with written confirmation that the return decision will temporarily not be enforced;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes with regret the limited use of Article 6(4) of the directive; is concerned about the failure of Member States to issue a temporary residence permit where return has proven not to be possible, which is leaving unreturnable migrants often unable to access their fundamental rights, including access to healthcare, housing, education and justice; underlines the fact that granting residence permits to individuals who cannot return to their country of origin could help to prevent protracted irregular stays and facilitate individuals’ social inclusion and contribution to society;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes with concern 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; calls on Member States to comply with the obligation of the Directive to consider withdrawing or suspending the ban in cases where a third-country national can demonstrate that he or she has left the territory of a Member State;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Reiterates that, in view of the formally non-punitive nature of return measures, an entry ban should not be used as a generic punitive measure but should instead be based on an individual assessment;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Considers that imposing lengthy entry bans consists of an undeniably punitive measure and contributes to a logic of criminalisation of migration; calls upon the Member State to have accessible procedures in place for requesting the lifting of an entry ban, in which an individual assessment is guaranteed, with due account to the best interests of the child, the right to family life and the principle of proportionality;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Highlights that to comply with Article 3(7) of the Directive, due consideration needs to be given to the individual circumstances of the person involved when identifying a risk of absconding to justify detention;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is concerned that the legislation of several Member States includes extensive lists of ‘objective criteria’ for defining the risk of absconding, amongst which general criteria such as the mere lack of identity documents, which establishes a de facto presumption of risk of absconding towards all undocumented migrants issued with a return decision, or the inability to provide a formal address or the lack of money; regrets that these criteria which are often applied in a more or less automatic way, while individual circumstances are of marginal consideration;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Stresses that, in line with international human rights law, detention must be prescribed by law and be necessary, reasonable and proportional to the objectives to be achieved and it should last for the shortest time possible, and that a decision to impose a detention measure always has to be based on an individual assessment of the individual circumstances, in which the individual interests have been taken into account;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Reiterates that longer detention does not increase the chance of return, is more costly than the alternatives to detention, and that states should not automatically rely on the maximum period permissible under the directive, and should ensure that all conditions for lawful detention are fulfilled throughout the detention period;