75 Amendments of Nadine MORANO related to 2018/0329(COD)
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) An effective and fair return policy is an essential part of the Union's approach to better manage migration in all aspects in a more balanced way, as reflected in the European Agenda on Migration of May 201511 . _________________ 11 11 COM(2015) 285 final.
Amendment 129 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) On 28 June 2018, in its conclusions, the European Council underlined the necessity to significantly step up the effective return of irregular migrants, and welcomed the intention of the Commission to make legislative proposals for a more effective and coherent European return policy. These conclusions were adopted in a context where the effective return rate was only 36.6% in 2017, which is wholly inadequate.
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
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 return policy which serves as a deterrent to irregular migration, reduces incentives for illegal migration and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal migration system.
Amendment 142 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
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.
Amendment 151 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) TIn order to make the return policy more coherent, clearer and easier to comprehend, 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.
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
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 exista matter for the Member States.
Amendment 156 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) In the event of a lack of cooperation by certain third countries regarding readmission of their nationals who have been apprehended in irregular situations and failure by those third countries to cooperate effectively in the return process, some of the provisions of the Visa Code should, on the basis of objective criteria, be applied in a restrictive and temporary manner to enhance a given third country’s cooperation on readmission.
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
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 a non-exhaustive list of 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. Third-country nationals should be obliged to provide all the elements in their possession that are necessary in order to assess the risk of absconding.
Amendment 170 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) Unless the Member States decide not to apply this Directive, pursuant to Article 2(2)(b), when determining the risk of absconding the relevant national authorities may take into consideration an infringement of the criminal law of Member States, including the rules on migration. Such authorities may also take into account the existence of an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution that has not yet led to a conviction, where provided by national law.
Amendment 173 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
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 in good faith with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure, including by providing all the information and all elements in their possession 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 penalties where provided for by national law, and to the access to programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
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.
Amendment 182 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
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 cannot 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 inadmissible, 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.
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
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.Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 186 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) In order to promote voluntary depareturne , Member States shouldmay have operational programmes providing for enhanced return assistance and counselling, which may include support for reintegration in third countries of return, taking into account t. The common standards on Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programmes developed by the Commission in cooperation with Member States and endorsed by the Council. could be taken into account. Voluntary return assistance should be granted in accordance with national regulations, which may make such assistance subject to conditions and may set out grounds for refusing it. This Directive does not establish a universal or absolute right for third- country nationals to receive assistance for voluntary departure or reintegration.
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
Amendment 194 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
Amendment 203 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
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 sincMember States should be free to establish the procedures and cases in which the return decision is to be suspended, automatically or otherwise.
Amendment 209 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The appeal against a return decision that is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection that 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 procedureo facilitate the operation of the courts and tribunals and to prevent delaying tactics designed to obstruct returns, Member States should ensure that appeals against return decisions are limited, as far as possible, to a single level of jurisdiction only, while guaranteeing the right to an effective remedy.
Amendment 211 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) Member States shall have the option to keep administrative review proceedings prior to an appeal before a court or tribunal, provided that the administrative review does not affect the effectiveness of the return procedure.
Amendment 212 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 b (new)
Recital 17 b (new)
(17b) A body that carries out a judicial function should be categorised as a court or tribunal if it has been established by law, is permanent, independent and impartial, and has an inter partes procedure, if its jurisdiction is compulsory, if it applies the rule of law, and if it offers the requisite procedural guarantees.
Amendment 219 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
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 delaMember States should, however, have the option to temporarily suspend a return decision where deemed necessary.
Amendment 226 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19 a (new)
Recital 19 a (new)
(19a) National application of the rules on the provisions of this Directive related to appeals and suspensive effect should comply with the right to an effective remedy as provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Amendment 234 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) The necessary legal aid should be made available, upon express request, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish a list of instances where legal aid is to be considered necessary.
Amendment 243 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The effects of national return measures should be given a European dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all the Member States. The length of the entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case and should not normally exceed five10 years. In this context, particular account should be taken of the fact that the third-country national concerned has already been the subject of more than one return decision or removal order or has entered the territory of a Member State during an entry ban.
Amendment 258 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 270 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
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 sixtwelve months, which may be prolonged, 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.
Amendment 271 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29 a (new)
Recital 29 a (new)
(29a) Where the order to detain a third- country national has been issued in an administrative procedure, the court or tribunal responsible for assessing the lawfulness of that decision may take into account all relevant facts, evidence and observations that may be submitted by the parties concerned.
Amendment 276 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) This Directive should notdoes not have the effect of precludeing Member States from laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties and criminal penalties, including fines and 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.
Amendment 280 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31 a (new)
Recital 31 a (new)
(31a) In view of the fact that third- country nationals detained for the purpose of removal are not detained as persons suspected of criminal activities or convicted of criminal offences, they should not be accommodated together with ordinary prisoners. It is also possible to ensure this separation by accommodating these third-country nationals in sections of penal institutions that are set aside and used solely for that purpose.
Amendment 287 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
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. Member States should be able to rely on appropriate Union funding to carry out the necessary activities for the border procedure.
Amendment 293 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) To ensure effective return in the context of the border procedure, this procedure should not result in a period for voluntary departure should not bebeing granted. However, a period for voluntary departure shouldmay 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.
Amendment 299 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) For a rapid and effective 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.
Amendment 313 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37 a (new)
Recital 37 a (new)
(37a) Mutual recognition of return decisions may help to ensure a more effective implementation of returns. Member States should make use of all available means of cooperation and exchanges of information for this purpose. The Commission should assess the EU’s returns legislation with a view to achieving a more uniform and consistent implementation of return decisions, and reducing the administrative burden on the national authorities, notably through mutual recognition of return decisions; it should also consider submitting a legislative proposal in that respect.
Amendment 317 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) Establishing return management systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that are relevant and complete for monitoring and following up on individual cases. To operate efficiently and in order to significantly reduce the administrative burden, such national return systems should be linked to the Schengen Information System to facilitate and speed up the entering of return-related information, as well as to the central system established by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation].
Amendment 323 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
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 sustainable return – and where relevant the reintegration – of illegalrregularly staying third- country nationals.
Amendment 335 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
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 European Union migration policy and the fight against illegal immigration and. It represents an important reason of substantial public interest.
Amendment 360 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c a (new)
(ca) a third country where the third- country national has a right to enter and reside;
Amendment 362 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c b (new)
(cb) as a last resort, if the return to a third country referred to in points (a) to (d) cannot be enforced due to lack of cooperation in the return process by either the third country or the third- country national, any third country with which there is an EU or bilateral agreement on the basis of which the third- country national is accepted, and is allowed to remain, where international human rights standards according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are respected, and provided that no international, European or national rules prevent the return. When the return is carried out to a third country, which has a common border with a Member State, the prior agreement of that Member State is required before starting negotiations on any such bilateral agreement.
Amendment 364 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6
6. ‘entry ban’ means an administrative or judicial decision or act prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of the Member States for a specified period, accompanying a return decision;
Amendment 372 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
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 1aragraph 1, points (d) to (p) inclusive, is fulfilled.
Amendment 373 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
9a. 10. ‘other authorisation offering a right to stay’ means any document issued by a Member State to a third-country national authorising them to stay on its territory, which is not a residence permit within the meaning of Article 2(16) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 or a long-stay visa within the meaning of Article 2(14) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 (SIS Regulation on returns), except for the document referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2013/33/EU.
Amendment 406 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) illegal entry into the territory of the Member States or apprehension or interception relating to the irregular crossing by land, sea or air of the external border of a Member State;
Amendment 408 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) unauthorised movement to the territory of another Member State, including movement after transit through a third country or attempts to do so;
Amendment 409 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) explicit expression of intent of non- compliance with all return-related measures applied by virtue of this Directive or actions clearly demonstrating an intent not to comply with all of these measures;
Amendment 421 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point m
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point m
(m) using false or forged identity or travel documents, destroying or otherwise disposing of existing documresidence permits or visas, or documents setting out the conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using pseudonyms with fraudulent intents, orcommunicating other false information orally or in writing, refusing to provide fingerprintsbiometric data as required by Union or national law;
Amendment 427 #
(p) not complying with an existing valid entry ban.
Amendment 428 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point p a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point p a (new)
(pa) risk to public order, public security or national security.
Amendment 429 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States may lay down additional objective criteria in their national legislation.
Amendment 431 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The existence of a risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account the objective criteria referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1a.
Amendment 434 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
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 (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p) and (pq) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.
Amendment 438 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – title
Article 7 – title
7 Obligation to cooperate on the part of third-country nationals
Amendment 449 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the duty to provide all the elements that are necessary for establishing or verifying identity and to prove, upon request, the efforts made;
Amendment 459 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the duty to provide a reliable address to the competent authorities, in the form and within the time frame established by national law, and to remain present and available throughout the procedures;
Amendment 466 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d
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, to provide all information and statements necessary to obtain such a document, and to cooperate with these authorities.
Amendment 470 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) the duty to appear in person, if and where required for that purpose, before the competent national and third-country authorities.
Amendment 476 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
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, place and date of birth, nationality or nationalities, age, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation, and biometric data.
Amendment 480 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall inform the third-country nationals about the consequences of not complying with the obligation referred to in paragraph 1. Member States shall lay down the procedures for providing such information.
Amendment 505 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
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 fiveten years. It may however exceed fiveten years if the third- country national represents a serious threat to public policy, public security or national security.
Amendment 509 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall issue a return decision at the same time as or 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].
Amendment 516 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 517 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 b (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Member States shall, where necessary, cooperate through designated contact points, for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of return decisions. In particular, Member States may cooperate by allowing transit through the territory of another Member State for the purpose of complying with a return decision or obtaining travel documents. The procedures for such cooperation may be set out in bilateral or multilateral arrangements or agreements and may include conditions on escorting, response deadlines and associated costs.
Amendment 528 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
The length of the period for voluntary departure shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case, taking into account in particular the prospect of return.
Amendment 549 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
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 illegally staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document, including the penalties laid down in national law where Member States have enacted such penalties.
Amendment 552 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 559 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 6
Article 10 – paragraph 6
6. Member States shall provide for an effective forced-return monitoring system. This system shall not involve the systematic implementation of a check on each forced return operation.
Amendment 566 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – introductory part
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – introductory part
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 subparagraphprovisions of this paragraph shall not apply where:
Amendment 572 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Before deciding to issue a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor, aMember States shall, as quickly as possible, take all the measures required to identify the child’s family members. 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.
Amendment 591 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
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.
Amendment 612 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
3.Member States shall establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national legislatprovisions, for the purpose of supporting the return of illegally staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130 . _________________ 30 Council 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 p. 1.
Amendment 620 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
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, and may be subject to the conditions and grounds for exclusion laid down in national provisions, particularly with regard to reintegration assistance in the third country of origin. The assistance referred to in this paragraph shall not be granted as a rule to a third-country national who has already benefited from reintegration assistance provided by a Member State.
Amendment 659 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall grant a period not exceeding fivetwo 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].
Amendment 660 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Member States may provide for administrative review proceedings prior to an appeal before a court or tribunal in accordance with paragraph 1, provided that the administrative review does not adversely affect the efficiency of the remedy.
Amendment 664 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 6
Article 16 – paragraph 6
6. Member States shall ensure that the necessary legal assistance and/or representation is granted on express 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 Article 15(3) to (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC.
Amendment 695 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 5
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 maximum period of detention of not less than three months and not more than six12 months.
Amendment 753 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24a When the third country is considered not to be cooperating sufficiently with Member States with regard to readmission, Article 25(1)(a) of the Visa Code shall apply.