27 Amendments of Giancarlo SCOTTÀ 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 immigration in all aspects, as reflected in the European Agenda on Migration of May 201511 . __________________ 11 COM(2015) 285 final.
Amendment 127 #
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 policyllegal immigrants.
Amendment 130 #
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 fundamentalhuman 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 and ensures coherence with and contributes to the integrity of the Common European Asylum System and the legal llegal immigration system.
Amendment 140 #
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, in particular when the third-country national poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security, and when he/she has been convicted for a criminal offence, even with a non- definitive sentence. 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 163 #
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 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.
Amendment 167 #
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 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, or they have been convicted for a criminal offence, even with a non-definitive sentence. 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 197 #
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 delay.
Amendment 206 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) The necessary legal aid should be made available , upon request and provided that the specific case has not been deemed inadmissible, to those who lack sufficient resources. National legislation should establish a list of instances where legal aid is to be considered necessary.
Amendment 224 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
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, or when he/she has been convicted for a criminal offence, even with a non- definitive sentence.
Amendment 237 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
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 immigration 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 267 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
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 foursix 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.
Amendment 271 #
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 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 275 #
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 return – and where relevantdeemed necessary the reintegration – of illegally staying third- country nationals.
Amendment 284 #
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 llegal immigration and represents an important reason of substantial public interest.
Amendment 308 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
9a. 'principle of non-refoulement' means the prohibition of expulsion or return according to Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Amendment 321 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least one of the following criteria:
Amendment 351 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) existence of conviction for a criminal offence, even with a non- definitive sentence, including for a serious criminal offence in another Member State;
Amendment 370 #
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 (k), (l), (m), (n), (o) and (p) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.
Amendment 387 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the duty to remain presenton call and available throughout the procedures;
Amendment 427 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall issue a return decision immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal either illegal 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 462 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)
Amendment 500 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States may impose an entry or stay 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 518 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 530 #
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 in any case 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.
Amendment 555 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
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.
Amendment 567 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point b a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) the return decision is the consequence of the decision on ending the legal stay that is aggravated by at least one of the following circumstances: - risk of absconding; - application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded; - the third-country national poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.
Amendment 649 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Detention shall be for as short a period as possible, which shall in no case exceed foursix months. It may be maintained only as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.