Sittings · Document

Draft report (COM(2025)0101 – 2025/0059(COD)) 2025-12-01

Establishing a common system for the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the Union, and repealing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, Council Directive 2001/40/EC and Council Decision 2004/191/EC

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX

AM_Com_LegReport

Amendment 200

Estrella Galán, Ilaria Salis, Damien Carême, Pernando Barrena Arza, Isabel Serra Sánchez, Özlem Demirel, João Oliveira

Proposal for a regulation

–

Proposal for rejection

The European Parliament rejects the Commission's proposal.

Or. en

Amendment 201

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Draft legislative resolution

Citation 2

Draft legislative resolution

Amendment

– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 79(2), point (c), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C10-0047/2025),

– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 79(2), point (c), Article 207, and Article 209 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C10-0047/2025),

Or. en

Amendment 202

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Title 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

establishing a common system for the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the Union, and repealing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directive 2001/40/EC and Council Decision 2004/191/EC

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on common standards and procedures in Member States for the return of third-country nationals staying irregularly in the Union, and repealing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directive 2001/40/EC and Council Decision 2004/191/EC

Or. en

Amendment 203

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Title 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

establishing a common system for the return of third-country nationals staying irregularly in the Union, and repealing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directive 2001/40/EC and Council Decision 2004/191/EC

Or. en

Amendment 204

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Title 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Or. en

Justification

If adopted, this should be changed accordingly throughout the legislation.

Amendment 205

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Title 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Or. en

Justification

If adopted, the amendment should apply throughout the text.

Amendment 206

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) The Union, in constituting an area of freedom, security and justice, should have a common policy on the return of third-country nationals with no right to stay in the Union. An effective return policy is a key component of a credible migration management system.

(1) The Union, in constituting an area of freedom, security and justice, should have a common policy on the return of third-country nationals with no right to stay in the Union. Against a backdrop of structurally low returns of unsuccessful asylum claimants from third countries for far too many years, an effective return policy is a key component of a credible migration management and anti-trafficking system.

Or. fr

Amendment 207

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Ana Miguel Pedro, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) The Union, in constituting an area of freedom, security and justice, should have an effective common policy on the return of third-country nationals with no right to enter or stay in the Union. An effective return policy is a key component of a credible migration management system and contributes to reducing incentives for illegal migration.

Or. en

Amendment 208

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) The Union, in constituting an area of freedom, security and justice, is obliged to support Member States by pursuing a common policy on the return of third-country nationals with no right to stay in the Union. An effective return policy constitutes an essential element of combatting illegal migration.

Or. en

Amendment 209

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 210

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) The Union, in constituting an area of freedom, security and justice, should have a common policy on the return of third-country nationals with no right to stay in the Union. To be effective, return policy should ensure that returns are safe, dignified and sustainable.

Or. en

Amendment 211

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) The Union, in constituting an area of freedom, security and justice, aimed at having a common policy on the return of third-country nationals with no right to stay in the Union. A dignified, humane, rights-based policy should be the basis of the EU's migration system.

Or. en

Amendment 212

Milan Uhrík

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) The Union, in constituting an area of freedom, security and justice, must have an effective policy on the return of third-country nationals with no right to stay in the Union. An effective return policy is a key component of a credible migration management system.

Or. en

Amendment 213

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1a) Several Member States have demonstrated that illegal migrants can be effectively returned through bilateral agreements with third countries. These provide a proven model in combating migratory pressure that should be widely implemented by Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 214

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) This Regulation establishes a common system for returning third-country nationals with no right to stay in the Union based on a common procedure for return and readmission, a system for preventing and managing the risk of absconding and cooperation based on mutual trust between Member States.

(2) This Regulation sets out common standards and procedures for returning third-country nationals illegally staying in the Member States based on a common procedure for return, obligations for the illegally staying third-country national, a set of tools for managing effective returns, including measures to incentivise return, and cooperation between Member States. This regulation does not replace the national return and readmission systems of the Member States and it is without prejudice to national competences and shall operate in parallel and in a complementary manner to national procedures.

Or. en

Amendment 215

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) This Regulation sets out common standards and procedures for returning third-country nationals illegally staying in the Member States based on a common procedure for return, obligations for the illegally staying third-country national, a set of tools for managing effective returns, including measures to incentivise return, and cooperation between Member States. This Regulation does not replace the national return and readmission systems of the Member States and it is without prejudice to national competences and shall, operate in parallel and in a complementary manner to national procedures.

Or. en

Amendment 216

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) This Regulation establishes a comprehensive common system for returning third-country nationals with no right to stay in the Union. This system is based on several essential components, including: a common procedure for return and readmission; a system for the mutual recognition and enforcement of return decisions; a system for preventing and managing the risk of absconding; and a Return Cooperation Mechanism designed to ensure that third countries readmit their own nationals, in line with their international obligations.

Or. en

Amendment 217

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) This Directive establishes common standards and procedures in Member States for the return of third-country nationals with no right to stay in the Union.

Or. en

Amendment 218

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Ana Miguel Pedro, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) This Regulation establishes a common system for returning third-country nationals with no right to enter or stay in the Union based on a common procedure for return and readmission, effective cooperation with third countries, a system for preventing and managing the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised movements, and cooperation based on mutual trust between Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 219

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) This Regulation establishes a common system for returning third-country nationals with no right to stay in the Union based on a common procedure for return and readmission.

Or. en

Amendment 220

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) This Regulation establishes a common system for returning third-country nationals with no right to stay in the Union based on a common procedure for return and readmission, a system for monitoring that procedure, a system for managing the risk of absconding and cooperation between Member States.

Or. en

Justification

The Regulation also provides for a system for monitoring. It is not possible to prevent a risk.

Amendment 221

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) To contribute to the implementation of the comprehensive approach set out in the Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council3 , a common system for effectively managing of the return of illegally staying third-country nationals should be put in place. That system should be based on integrated policy-making to ensure coherence and effectiveness of the actions and measures taken by the Union and its Member States acting within their respective competencies.

deleted

_________________

3 Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on asylum and migration management, amending Regulations (EU) 2021/1147 and (EU) 2021/1060 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (OJ L 222, 22.5.2024, p. 1).

Or. en

Amendment 222

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) A common system for effectively managing of the return of irregularly staying third-country nationals should be put in place. That system should be based on respect for international and EU law regarding human rights and international protection.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 223

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) To contribute to the implementation of the comprehensive approach set out in the Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council3 , common standards and procedures for effectively managing of the return of illegally staying third-country nationals should be put in place. The common standards and procedures should be based on integrated policy-making to ensure coherence and effectiveness of the actions and measures taken by the Union and its Member States acting within their respective competencies.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 224

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) To contribute to the implementation of the comprehensive approach set out in the Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council3 , a common system for effectively managing of the return of third-country nationals staying irregularly on the territory of a Member State should be put in place. That system should be based on integrated policy-making to ensure coherence and effectiveness of the actions and measures taken by the Union and its Member States acting within their respective competencies.

_________________

Or. en

Justification

Aligned with the definitions in Article 4.

Amendment 225

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 226

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Ana Miguel Pedro, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) The European Council has consistently underlined the importance for determined action at all levels to facilitate, increase and speed up returns from the European Union, including by strengthening the link between the issuance of a return decision and the effective departure of the third-country national concerned. The European Council in October 2024 invited the Commission to submit a new legislative proposal, as a matter of urgency.

Or. en

Amendment 227

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) The European Council has consistently underlined the importance for determined action at all levels to facilitate, increase and speed up returns from the European Union. The European Council in October 2024 invited the Commission to submit a new legislative proposal, as a matter of urgency, with a view to significantly increasing the rate of effective returns in the European Union, given that that figure was just 24 % in 2024.

Or. fr

Amendment 228

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) The European Council in October 2024 invited the Commission to submit a new legislative proposal, as a matter of urgency, which led to this proposal being presented without an Impact Assessment, contrary to the Better Regulation Guidelines.

Or. en

Amendment 229

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) The Strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 12 December 2024 recall that a successful return policy is a fundamental pillar of a comprehensive and credible Union asylum and migration system. To this end, the strategic guidelines call to develop and implement a more assertive and comprehensive approach to returns, by upgrading the legal framework as a matter of urgency.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 230

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) The Strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 12 December 2024 recall that a successful return policy is a fundamental pillar of a comprehensive and credible Union asylum and migration system. To this end, the strategic guidelines call for the development and implementation of a more assertive and comprehensive approach to returns, by upgrading the legal framework as a matter of urgency.

Or. en

Justification

Linguistic amendment.

Amendment 231

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) The Strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 12 December 2024 recall that a successful return policy is a fundamental pillar of a comprehensive, effective and credible Union asylum and migration system. To this end, the strategic guidelines call to develop and implement a more assertive and comprehensive approach to returns, by upgrading the legal framework as a matter of urgency.

Or. en

Amendment 232

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) An effective return policy should ensure coherence with and contribute to the integrity of the Pact on Migration and Asylum and contribute to managing illegal immigration to the Union and prevent unauthorised movements between Member States of illegally staying third-country nationals to safeguard the area without internal border controls while respecting fundamental rights.

(6) A return policy should ensure coherence with the commitments of Member States taken under the UN Global Compact on Migration endorsed on 19 December 2018 by the United Nations General Assembly. States committed in this text to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorised officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. They also committed to prioritise non-custodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

Or. en

Amendment 233

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) An effective return policy should contribute to managing irregular immigration to the Union while respecting fundamental rights.

Or. en

Amendment 234

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 235

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) An effective return policy should ensure coherence with and contribute to the integrity of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, while making significant improvements to it, in order to contribute to proper control of illegal immigration to the Union, stem illegal flows, and prevent unauthorised movements between Member States of illegally staying third-country nationals to safeguard the area without internal border controls while respecting fundamental rights.

Or. fr

Amendment 236

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) An effective return policy should guarantee effective expulsion to origin or transit countries and prevent unauthorised movements between Member States of illegally staying third-country nationals to safeguard the area without internal border controls against threats arising from illegal migration.

Or. en

Amendment 237

Charlie Weimers, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Georgiana Teodorescu, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 238

Milan Uhrík

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) An effective return policy should ensure the safety of citizens of the Member States, stop the illegal immigration to the Union and prevent unauthorised movements between Member States of illegally staying third-country nationals to safeguard the area without internal border controls while respecting fundamental rights.

Or. en

Amendment 239

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) An effective return policy should ensure coherence with and contribute to the integrity of the Pact on Migration and Asylum and contribute to managing irregular immigration to the Union and preventing unauthorised movements between Member States to safeguard the area without internal border controls while respecting fundamental rights.

Or. en

Justification

Aligned with the definitions in Article 4.

Amendment 240

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Ana Miguel Pedro, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) An effective return policy should ensure coherence with and contribute to the integrity of the Pact on Migration and Asylum and contribute to prevent illegal immigration to the Union and unauthorised movements between Member States of illegally staying third-country nationals to safeguard the area without internal border controls while respecting fundamental rights.

Or. en

Amendment 241

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) The Union and its Member States have been increasing efforts to make return policies more effective. Despite these efforts, the existing legal framework which consists of Council Directive 2001/40/EC4 and Directive 2008/115/EC5 , is no longer corresponding to the needs of the Union migration policy. Since the adoption of Directive 2008/115/EC in 2008, the area of freedom, security and justice and the Union's migration policy has considerably evolved. EU law in the area of migration has moved from legislation with minimum standards to bringing Member States' practices closer. The Commission sought to reform the return rules in 2018 with the proposal to recast the Return Directive6 . The Commission has also sought to support Member States in using the flexibilities of Directive 2008/115/EC through Recommendations (EU) 2017/23387 and (EU) 2023/6828 . However, the limits of the current legal framework have been reached.

deleted

_________________

4 Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on asylum and migration management, amending Regulations (EU) 2021/1147 and (EU) 2021/1060 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (OJ L 222, 22.5.2024, p. 1).

5 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/115/oj).

6 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (recast). Brussels, 12.9.2018. COM(2018) 634 final, 2018/0329 (COD).

7 Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/2338 of 16 November 2017 establishing a common ‘Return Handbook’ to be used by Member States' competent authorities when carrying out return-related tasks (OJ L 339, 19.12.2017, p. 83, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2017/2338/oj).

8 Commission Recommendation (EU) 2023/682 of 16 March 2023 on mutual recognition of return decisions and expediting returns when implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. C/2023/1763. OJ L 86, 24.3.2023, p. 58, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2023/682/oj.

Or. en

Amendment 242

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) The existing legal framework on return which consists of Council Directive 2001/40/EC4 and Directive 2008/115/EC5 needs to be updated. Since the adoption of Directive 2008/115/EC in 2008, the area of freedom, security and justice and the Union's migration policy has considerably evolved. EU law in the area of migration has moved from legislation with minimum standards to bringing Member States' practices closer. The limits of the current legal framework on return have been reached.

_________________

Or. en

Justification

The recital is unnecessarily negative and backward looking.

Amendment 243

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 244

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 245

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) The Union and its Member States have been increasing efforts to make return policies more effective. Despite these efforts, the existing legal framework which consists of Council Directive 2001/40/EC4 and Directive 2008/115/EC5, is no longer corresponding to the needs of the Union migration policy. Since the adoption of Directive 2008/115/EC in 2008, the area of freedom, security and justice and the Union's migration policy has considerably evolved. EU law in the area of migration has moved from legislation with minimum standards to bringing Member States' practices closer. The Commission sought to reform the return rules in 2018 with the proposal to recast the Return Directive6 . The Commission has also sought to support Member States in using the flexibilities of Directive 2008/115/EC through Recommendations (EU) 2017/23387 and (EU) 2023/6828 . However, the limits of the current legal framework have been reached.

(7) The Union and its Member States have been increasing efforts to make return policies more effective. Despite these efforts, implementation of and compliance with the existing legal framework which consists of Council Directive 2001/40/EC4 and Directive 2008/115/EC5, varies among Member States. Since the adoption of Directive 2008/115/EC in 2008, the area of freedom, security and justice and the Union's migration policy has considerably evolved. EU law in the area of migration has moved from legislation with minimum standards to bringing Member States' practices closer. Further harmonisation through a Regulation is therefore appropriate.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 246

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) A common procedure for return that is firm and fair should be set up to ensure that third-country nationals who do not, or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States are returned in a humane manner and with full respect for fundamental rights as well as international law. Clear and transparent rules applicable in all Member States should provide certainty for the third-country national concerned and competent authorities. It is important to simplify, facilitate and speed up return procedures and ensure that return is not obstructed by unauthorised movements to other Member States.

(8) Member States should not be obliged to adopt and implement a return policy. If a Member State chooses to do so, its return policy should be only voluntary and based on common standards for persons to return in a humane manner and with full respect for their fundamental rights and dignity as well as international law, including refugee protection, protection of the rights of the child, protection of stateless persons and other human rights obligations. For this purpose, clear, transparent and rights-based rules need to be established.

Or. en

Amendment 247

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) A common procedure for return that is safe, dignified and sustainable should be set up to ensure that third-country nationals who do not, or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States are returned in a humane manner and with full respect for fundamental rights as well as international law. Clear and transparent rules applicable in all Member States should provide certainty for the third-country national concerned and competent authorities. It is important to simplify return procedures.

Or. en

Amendment 248

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) A common procedure for return that is firm and fair should be set up to ensure that third-country nationals who do not, or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States are returned in a humane manner. Clear and transparent rules applicable in all Member States should provide certainty for the third-country national concerned and competent authorities. It is important to simplify, facilitate and speed up return procedures and ensure that return is not obstructed by unauthorised movements to other Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 249

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) A common procedure for return that is firm and fair should be set up to ensure that third-country nationals who do not, or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States are returned without undue delay. Clear and transparent rules applicable in all Member States should provide certainty for the third-country national concerned and competent authorities. It is important to simplify, facilitate and speed up return procedures and ensure that return is not obstructed by unauthorised movements to other Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 250

Charlie Weimers, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Georgiana Teodorescu, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) A common procedure for return that is firm should be set up to ensure that third-country nationals who do not, or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States are returned in a humane manner. Clear and transparent rules applicable in all Member States should provide certainty for the third-country national concerned and competent authorities. It is important to simplify, facilitate and speed up return procedures and ensure that return is not obstructed, including by unauthorised movements to other Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 251

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 252

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) A common procedure for effective returns should be set up to ensure that third-country nationals who do not, or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States are returned in a sustainable, dignified and humane manner and with full respect for fundamental rights as well as international law. Clear and transparent rules applicable in all Member States should provide certainty for the third-country national concerned and competent authorities. It is important to simplify, facilitate and speed up return procedures and ensure that return is not obstructed by unauthorised movements to other Member States.

Or. en

Justification

For consistency with the operative part.

Amendment 253

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) A common procedure for return that is firm and fair should be set up to ensure that third-country nationals who do not, or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States are returned in a humane manner and with full respect for fundamental rights as well as international law. Clear and transparent rules applicable in all Member States should provide legal certainty and ensure effective enforcement of return decisions. It is important to simplify, facilitate and speed up return procedures and ensure that return is not obstructed by unauthorised movements to other Member States.

Or. fr

Amendment 254

Milan Uhrík

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) A common procedure for return that is firm and fair should be set up to ensure that third-country nationals who do not, or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States are returned as soon as possible with full respect of national interest of the Member States. Clear and transparent rules applicable in all Member States should provide certainty for the third-country national concerned and competent authorities. It is important to simplify, facilitate and speed up return procedures and ensure that return is not obstructed by unauthorised movements to other Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 255

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8a) While common procedures at Union level contribute to a more efficient return procedure, the differences between national legal systems and the varying challenges faced by Member States must also be taken into account. It is therefore appropriate to allow Member States to adopt additional national measures that enhance public order and safety or further streamline return procedures, provided that such measures are fully compliant with the provisions of this Regulation and other relevant Union law.

Or. en

Amendment 256

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Jacek Ozdoba

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) The application of the rules pursuant to this Regulation should not affect the rules on access to international protection in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and the Council9 . Where relevant, the rules in this Regulation are complemented by the specific rules linking negative asylum decisions and return decisions for issuance and for remedies in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and the return border procedure set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1349 of the European Parliament and the Council10 .

deleted

_________________

9 Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU (OJ L 222, 22.5.2024, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1348/oj).

10 Regulation (EU) 2024/1349 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a return border procedure, and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1148 (OJ L, 2024/1349, 22.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1349/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 257

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 258

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) The application of the rules pursuant to this Regulation should not affect the rules on access to international protection in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and the Council9 . Where relevant, the rules in this Regulation are complemented by the specific rules linking negative asylum decisions and return decisions for issuance in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and the return border procedure set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1349 of the European Parliament and the Council10 In that regard, it is important to align provisions on remedies to ensure the practical exercise of the right to an effective remedy for those persons subject to this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 or Regulation 2024/1349.

_________________

Or. en

Justification

The deadlines for lodging appeals need to make sense across the Regulations and must allow for returnees to fully exercise their right to an effective remedy.

Amendment 259

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) The application of the rules pursuant to this Directive should not affect the rules on access to international protection in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and the Council9 . Where relevant, the rules in this Regulation are complemented by the specific rules linking negative asylum decisions and return decisions for issuance and for remedies in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and the return border procedure set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1349 of the European Parliament and the Council10 guaranteeing in all cases the right to an effective remedy with automatic suspensive effect of the return at all stages of the procedure.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 260

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9a) This Regulation governs return procedures independently of the rules laid down in other Union acts. Its application shall not be conditioned on, or subordinated to, the mechanisms established in Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 or Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.

Or. en

Amendment 261

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights of third-country nationals and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) as well as the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 (the 'Geneva Convention'). It should be applied in compliance with the Charter, general principles of Union law and relevant international law.

(10) This Directive respects the fundamental rights of third-country nationals and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’), the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 (the 'Geneva Convention') and the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons of 28 September 1954 (the ‘Statelessness Convention’). It should be applied in compliance with the Charter, general principles of Union law and relevant international law.

Or. en

Amendment 262

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) The principle of non-refoulement and the prohibition of collective expulsion provided for in Article 19 of the Charter should be respected when applying this Regulation. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a third country where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 263

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) The principle of non-refoulement and the prohibition of collective expulsion provided for in Article 19 of the Charter should be respected.

Or. en

Amendment 264

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) The principle of non-refoulement and the prohibition of collective expulsion provided for in Article 19 of the Charter should be respected.

Or. en

Amendment 265

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) The principle of non-refoulement and the prohibition of collective expulsion provided for in Article 19 of the Charter should be respected when applying this Directive. No one should be removed, expelled or extradited to a third country where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or any other violation of human rights.

Or. en

Amendment 266

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11a) To ensure the swiftness and enforceability of returns, it is essential to maintain a clear distinction between the asylum and return procedures. The possibility of postponing removal on grounds related to international protection risks creating a parallel protection system within the return framework, which can be subject to abuse and can create a paradoxical legal status for the person concerned. Therefore, the assessment of protection needs, including compliance with the principle of non-refoulement, should be exhaustively and exclusively dealt with in the asylum procedure.

Or. en

Justification

We maintain the fundamental position that the non-refoulement check should not be part of the Return Regulation. This assessment belongs exclusively within the asylum framework, as is the case under the current Directive, thereby preventing a confusing and inefficient duplication of procedures. While the amendments in Article 12 introduce such a check, our fallback position is that its application must be strictly circumscribed. It should not become a tool for re-litigating asylum claims, but rather a final, limited verification.

Amendment 267

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) The Member State on whose territory a third-country national is found to be staying irregularly should establish a fair and transparent procedure aimed at checking whether his or her stay could be regularised by granting an autonomous residence permit, long-stay visa or other authorisation offering a right to stay for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons. Member States should check for any vulnerabilities, ensuring that the detection of such vulnerabilities suspends any return procedure until their protection needs have been properly assessed and it is guaranteed that the return will not entail a risk of violation of their fundamental rights.

Or. en

Amendment 268

Irena Joveva

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) The Member State on whose territory the illegally staying third-country national is detected is responsible for ensuring his or her return. Upon detection of illegal stay, Member States should swiftly identify the third-country national and verify possible security risks by querying the relevant Union and national databases. Member States should check for any vulnerabilities as defined in this Regulation and, where relevant, perform a health check. Since early identification of vulnerability is a prerequisite for a fair procedure, an individual assessment should be conducted before a return decision is issued.

Or. en

Amendment 269

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) The Member State on whose territory the third-country national is irregularly present is responsible for ensuring his or her return. Where a Member State establishes that a third-country national is irregularly present, it should swiftly identify the third-country national and verify possible security risks by querying the relevant Union and national databases. Member States should check for any vulnerabilities and, where relevant, perform a health check.

Or. en

Justification

For consistency with the operative part.

Amendment 270

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) The Member State on whose territory the illegally staying third-country national is detected is responsible for ensuring his or her return. Upon detection of illegal stay, Member States should, without duplicating checks undertaken in previous proceedings or processes, swiftly identify the third-country national and verify possible security risks by querying the relevant Union and national databases

Or. en

Amendment 271

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) The Member State on whose territory the irregularly staying third-country national is detected is responsible for ensuring his or her return. Upon detection of irregular stay, Member States should swiftly identify the third-country national and verify possible security threats by querying the relevant Union and national databases. Member States should check for any vulnerabilities and perform a health check.

Or. en

Amendment 272

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) The Member State on whose territory the illegally staying third-country national is detected is responsible for ensuring his or her return. Upon detection of illegal stay, Member States should, without duplicating checks undertaken in previous proceedings or processes, swiftly identify the third-country national and verify possible security risks by querying the relevant Union and national databases.

Or. en

Amendment 273

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12a) Member States should ensure that, prior to issuing a return decision, a reasonable and objective individual assessment of fundamental rights is carried out for each third-country national, with due diligence and in good faith. This assessment should consider the principle of non-refoulement, the right to family life, the best interests of the child, any situation of vulnerability or any risk of violation of their human rights. Where such assessment indicates that a return would violate fundamental rights under Union or international law, the return decision should not be issued.

Or. en

Amendment 274

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12a) Member States retain the right to grant, at any moment, autonomous residence permits, long-stay visas or other authorisations offering a right to stay for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons to third-country nationals in an irregular status. In such cases, issued return decisions should be withdrawn or suspended for the duration of the validity of the residence permit, long-stay visa or other authorisation offering a right to stay

Or. en

Justification

To align with and reinforce Article 7(9)

Amendment 275

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12a) Women who are victims of trafficking, gender-based violence or gender apartheid constitute a category of particularly vulnerable persons within the meaning of articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive (EU) 2024/1712. Their specific protection needs should preclude any return procedure that could expose them to further harm.

Or. en

Amendment 276

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12b) Member States should ensure that a vulnerability assessment is carried out for persons subject to return procedures at any stage. Factors increasing the risk of vulnerability may include, among others: individual factors such as age, sex, gender, status in society, beliefs and attitudes, emotional, psychological and cognitive characteristics, physical and mental well-being, household and family factors, community factors, structural factors, situational factors or any other factors that can affect the person.

Or. en

Amendment 277

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) Competent authorities should verify compliance with the principle of non-refoulement on the basis of an individual assessment taking into account all relevant circumstances. The third-country national concerned should submit as quickly as possible evidence relating to his or her own personal circumstances. It should be possible to rely upon an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstance made in previous stages of the procedure. Any change in circumstances and any new element evidencing a risk should be examined.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 278

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 279

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 280

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 281

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) In case of removal, competent authorities should verify compliance with the principle of non-refoulement on the basis of an individual assessment taking into account all relevant circumstances. The third-country national concerned should submit as quickly as possible evidence relating to his or her own personal circumstances. It should be possible to rely upon an existing assessment of all relevant circumstance made in previous stages of the procedure or in other previous procedures. Any relevant change in circumstances and any new element evidencing a risk should be examined, provided that they are substantiated and not considered to have been brought forward by the third-country national merely in order to delay or frustrate the removal. Member States may refer the third-country national who indicates that the removal would breach the principle of non-refoulement to the appropriate procedure, including the asylum procedure in reference to Regulation 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU.

Or. en

Amendment 282

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) Competent authorities should verify compliance with the principle of non-refoulement on the basis of an individual assessment taking into account all relevant circumstances. The third-country national concerned should submit as quickly as possible evidence relating to his or her own personal circumstances. It should be possible to rely upon an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstance made in previous stages of the procedure, provided that an assessment of the merits of any application for international protection has been carried out in those previous stages. Any change in circumstances and any new element evidencing a risk should be examined.

Or. en

Justification

For consistency with Article 13.

Amendment 283

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) Competent authorities should verify compliance with the principle of non-refoulement on the basis of an individual assessment taking into account all relevant circumstances. The third-country national or stateless person concerned should be granted the effective possibility to submit evidence relating to his or her own personal circumstances. Any change in circumstances and any new element evidencing a risk should be examined.

Or. en

Amendment 284

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 285

Abir Al-Sahlani, Irena Joveva, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13a) During the assessment competent authorities should give particular consideration to any indications of vulnerability or special procedural needs that may significantly affect the situation of the third-country national upon return. Such vulnerabilities may include, inter alia, elderly age, disabilities, serious illness, past experiences of trauma, torture or exploitation, or risks linked to sexual orientation or gender identity. Where such circumstances are identified, Member States should ensure that appropriate safeguards and support measures are provided without delay, including, where relevant, cooperation with specialised services and the involvement of trained personnel, particularly in cases concerning minors.

Or. en

Amendment 286

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) It is necessary that Member States can cooperate more flexibly, including through new bilateral agreements or arrangements, and in a more targeted manner to reduce movements of illegally staying third-country nationals across common internal borders while at the same time safeguarding the Schengen area without internal border controls.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 287

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 288

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) It is necessary that Member States can cooperate more flexibly, including through new bilateral agreements or arrangements, and in a more targeted manner to foster effective returns to third countries.

Or. en

Amendment 289

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Irena Joveva, Abir Al-Sahlani

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) It is necessary that Member States can better cooperate more under the new common system for returns to reduce movements of illegally staying third-country nationals across common internal borders while at the same time safeguarding the Schengen area without internal border controls.

Or. en

Amendment 290

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) It is necessary that Member States can cooperate more flexibly, including through new bilateral agreements or arrangements, and in a more targeted manner to reduce and prevent movements of illegally staying third-country nationals across common internal borders while at the same time safeguarding the Schengen area without internal border controls.

Or. en

Amendment 291

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) Member States should be able to cooperate flexibly on return, without undermining the rules on transfers of applicants for international protection and the rules governing the Schengen area of free movement. Such cooperation should help reduce secondary movements of persons who have received return decisions across common internal borders.

Or. en

Justification

Encouraging new bilateral agreements between Member States is the opposite of harmonising a European approach. The uncertainty regarding responsibility for Returns will only increase with a tangled web of bilateral agreements shifting responsibility around the Union.

Amendment 292

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 293

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) Once it is established that the third-country national does not or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States, and that no other possibility for granting a permit to stay applies, a return decision should be swiftly issued based on an individual assessment taking into account all facts and circumstances. Such an assessment should include an assessment of individual human rights grounds that may affect the suitability of return, including any risk of refoulement, the right to family life, the best interests of the child, the person’s state of physical and mental health, and any situation of vulnerability affecting the person concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 294

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) Once it is established that the third-country national does not or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States, a return decision should be issued swiftly. The return decision should state the obligation for the third-country national to leave the territory of the Member States. The return decision should not be required to determine country of return. The country of return should at the latest be determined prior to removal, and may be determined in either the return decision or in any other decision ordering the removal separate from the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 295

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) Once it is established that the third-country national does not or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States, a return decision should be swiftly issued. The return decision should state the obligation for the third-country national to leave the territory of the Member States. The return decision should not be required to determine the country of return. The country of return should at the latest be determined prior to removal and may be determined in either the return decision or in any other decision ordering the removal separate from the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 296

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 297

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) Once it is established that the third-country national does not or no longer fulfils the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States, based on an individual assessment and taking into account all facts and circumstances, a return decision should normally be issued swiftly.

Or. en

Justification

The order of the process is inverted to make it clear how it should work.

Amendment 298

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 15 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15a) The third-country national with an obligation to leave should have the primary responsibility for departing the territory of the Member States in accordance with the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 299

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) It is necessary to ensure that the essential elements of a return decision issued by a Member State are entered in a specific form as a European Return Order and made available in the Schengen Information System together with the alert on return or through bilateral information exchange with another Member State. The European Return Order should in turn support the recognition and enforcement of return decisions issued by another Member State where the third country national moves unauthorised to another Member State.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 300

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 301

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) It is necessary to ensure that the essential elements of a return decision issued by a Member State are entered into the Schengen Information System and made available through the alert on return and, if necessary, through bilateral information exchange with another Member State. The information may be exchanged in the Schengen Information System using a European Return Order. Information exchange based on Schengen Information System should in turn support an effective return system, including the recognition and enforcement of return decisions issued by another Member State where the third country national moves unauthorised to another Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 302

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) It is necessary to ensure that the essential elements of a return decision issued by a Member State are entered in a specific form as a European Return Order, which is secondary to the decision on return under national law, and made available in the Schengen Information System together with the alert on return or through bilateral information exchange with another Member State. The European Return Order should in turn support the recognition and enforcement of return decisions issued by another Member State where the third country national moves unauthorised to another Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 303

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) The essential elements of a return decision issued by a Member State may be entered in a specific form - a European Return Order - which may then be made available in the Schengen Information System together with the alert on return or through bilateral information exchange with another Member State. The European Return Order in turn may facilitate the recognition and enforcement of return decisions issued by another Member State.

Or. en

Justification

For consistency with amendments tabled to Article 9.

Amendment 304

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 305

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Often, and especially in cases where there is no cooperation by the third country national, it is difficult for the competent authorities to identify the country of return at the time of issuing the return decision. In such cases, the competent authorities should determine the country of return on the basis of the information available. Member States may indicate none, one or more possible countries of return in the return decision, in accordance with their national law. The country of return may be determined either in the return decision or, where appropriate, at a later stage in the removal order.

Or. en

Amendment 306

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) In cases where there is no cooperation by the third country national, the competent authorities should determine the country or countries of return on the basis of information available and indicate the most likely country or countries in the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 307

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 308

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Often, including cases where there is no cooperation by the third country national, it is difficult for the competent authorities to identify the country of return at the time of issuing the return decision. In such cases, the competent authorities should not issue a return decision. If it is discovered that the wrong country has been identified, the return decision should be withdrawn and any corresponding alert in the Schengen Information System should be deleted by the issuing Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 309

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Often, and especially in cases where the third country national does not or cannot provide sufficient information, it is difficult for the competent authorities to identify the country of return for the purposes of issuing the return decision. In such cases, the competent authorities should be able to determine a provisional country of return on the basis of the information available and indicate a single country of return in the return decision.

Or. en

Justification

For consistency with amendments to Article 7.

Amendment 310

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Where a third-country national present on the territory of a Member State is subject to an enforceable return decision from another Member State, that decision should be recognised and enforced. Recognition and enforcement of return decisions should facilitate and accelerate the return process on the basis of enhanced cooperation and mutual trust between Member States. They can also contribute to deterring irregular migration and discouraging unauthorised secondary movements within the Union, as well as limiting delays in the return process. The remedy against the return decisions should be exercised in the issuing Member State.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 311

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Where a third-country national present on the territory of a Member State is subject to an enforceable return decision from another Member State, no further return decision should be issued.

Or. en

Amendment 312

Irena Joveva

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Where a third-country national present on the territory of a Member State is subject to an enforceable return decision from another Member State, that decision may be recognised and enforced. The recognition and following possible enforcement of removals requires thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances, particularly to allow for the assessment of vulnerability of a third-country national and to take into account the principle of non-refoulment, so the Member States should retain the discretion to review individual cases prior to enforcement. Recognition and enforcement of return decisions should facilitate and accelerate the return process on the basis of enhanced cooperation and mutual trust between Member States. They can also contribute to deterring irregular migration and discouraging unauthorised secondary movements within the Union, as well as limiting delays in the return process. The remedy against the return decisions should be exercised in the issuing Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 313

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Where a third-country national present on the territory of a Member State is subject to a return decision from another Member State, that decision may be recognised and enforced. The remedy against the return decisions should be exercised only in the issuing Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 314

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Where a third-country national present on the territory of a Member State is subject to a return decision from another Member State, that decision may be recognised and enforced. The remedy against the return decision should be exercised only in the issuing Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 315

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. fr

Amendment 316

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Where a third-country national present on the territory of a Member State is subject to an enforceable return decision from another Member State, that decision can be recognised and enforced. Recognition and enforcement of return decisions requires enhanced cooperation and mutual trust between Member States, in particular to ensure that the returnee can exercise fully the right to an effective remedy. Mutual recognition of return decisions can also contribute to discouraging unauthorised secondary movements within the Union.

Or. en

Justification

For consistency with amendments to Article 9.

Amendment 317

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Where a third-country national present on the territory of a Member State is subject to an enforceable return decision from another Member State, that decision should be recognised and enforced in the cases and under the conditions laid down in this Regulation. Recognition and enforcement of return decisions should facilitate and accelerate the return process on the basis of enhanced cooperation and mutual trust between Member States. They can also contribute to deterring illegal migration and discouraging unauthorised secondary movements within the Union, as well as limiting delays in the return process. The remedy against the return decisions should be exercised in the issuing Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 318

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18a) To facilitate the mutual recognition of return decisions, a European Return Order should be established to enable Member States to insert such a form in the Schengen Information System. For that purpose, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the establishment of the form of the European Return Order. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Inter-institutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts

Or. en

Justification

Aligned with amendments to Articles 7 and 48a.

Amendment 319

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18a) To counter this and to ensure responsibility for enforcement is clearly assigned, this Regulation establishes a binding 'take back' mechanism founded on the principle that the issuing Member State retains ultimate responsibility. An apprehending Member State may therefore request a take back, particularly when facing its own impediments to removal or when the issuing Member State has better prospects for success. To ensure the swiftness and certainty of this procedure, a failure by the issuing Member State to respond to the notification within a strict time limit entails an automatic obligation to take back the person and enforce the return.

Or. en

Amendment 320

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18a) Where the removal is carried out on the basis of the information available in the European Return Order referred to in Article 7(7) or in the Schengen Information System, or on the issuing Member State’s return decision and where relevant the decision ordering the removal, the recognition should not constitute a decision or act.

Or. en

Amendment 321

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18a) In order to support Member States in ensuring the effective implementation of the Union’s return policy, the costs directly linked to return, removal and detention should be eligible for Union financial support.

Or. en

Amendment 322

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18b) To ensure that the take back procedure is not frustrated by the third-country national absconding yet again, Member States should have the possibility to detain the person for the specific purpose of securing the transfer to the issuing Member State. Such detention should only be imposed where necessary and proportionate, and for the shortest possible period required to complete the administrative procedures for the transfer.

Or. en

Amendment 323

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18b) The enforcing Member State may decide not to recognise or enforce a return decision or the decision ordering the removal of the issuing Member State in a number of situations, for example when it is faster for the enforcing Member State to issue its own return decision pursuant to Article 7(1) or if the enforcing Member State has in place cooperation modalities which allow for faster and more effective return or removal.

Or. en

Amendment 324

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) From the date of application of this Regulation, Member States should put in place legal and technical arrangements to ensure that the European Return Order can be made available through the Schengen Information System. By 1 July 2027, just over one year after the date of application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351, the Commission should review whether Member States have established appropriate legal and technical arrangements to effectively process European Return Orders through the Schengen Information System. Based on that review, the Commission should adopt an implementing decision by which the recognition of enforceable return decisions, supported by the European Return Order, should become mandatory.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 325

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 326

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) From the date of application of this Regulation, Member States should put in place legal and technical arrangements to ensure that it is possible to make a European Return Order available through the Schengen Information System. By 1 July 2028, the Commission should assess whether the arrangements put in place by the Member States are effective and to assess the implications of mutual recognition on the right of a returnee to an effective remedy.

Or. en

Justification

For consistency with amendments to Article 9.

Amendment 327

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) From the date of application of this Regulation, Member States should put in place legal and technical arrangements to ensure that the European Return Order can be made available through the Schengen Information System. [Three years after the application of] the date of application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351, the Commission should review the enforcement of return decisions and decisions ordering the removal are effective, whether the relevant information available in the Schengen Information System is updated in compliance with Regulation 2018/1860, and whether the legal and technical arrangements put in place by the Member States to make available the European Return Order through the Schengen Information System. Based on that review, the Council should adopt an implementing decision by which the recognition of enforceable return decisions, supported by the European Return Order, should become mandatory.

Or. en

Amendment 328

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) The effects of national return measures should continue to be given a Union dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all Member States. The length of an entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case and should in principle not exceed ten years. When an illegally staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it could be appropriate to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 329

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) When a return decision is issued, Member States should be able to also issue an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all Member States. Whether an entry ban is issued and the length of that entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case and should in principle not exceed five years.

Or. en

Justification

For consistency with amendments to Article 10

Amendment 330

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) The effects of national return measures should continue to be given a Union dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all Member States. The length of an entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case and shall be at least seven years. Member States may also impose an entry ban for a lifetime duration. When an illegally staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it shall be appropriate to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration.

Or. en

Amendment 331

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) To ensure the credibility of the Union's return policy and provide a strong deterrent against non-compliance and unauthorised re-entry, an entry ban should be a systematic and serious consequence of an illegal stay, with Union-wide effect. This Regulation therefore establishes a system of mandatory minimum durations, with a 10-year ban for the most serious cases, such as where a person absconds or fails to cooperate, and a 5-year ban for others. Furthermore, to provide long-term protection against the gravest threats, a life-long entry ban may be imposed on third-country nationals who pose a risk to national security.

Or. en

Amendment 332

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) The effects of national return measures should continue to be given a Union dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all Member States. The length of an entry ban should be ten years. When an illegally staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, an entry ban should be imposed in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration while not preventing the swift departure of the third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 333

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) The effects of national return measures should continue to be given a Union dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all Member States. The length of an entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case. When an illegally staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it could be appropriate to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration.

Or. en

Amendment 334

Milan Uhrík

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) The effects of national return measures should continue to be given a Union dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all Member States. The length of an entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case and should in principle exceed twenty years. When an illegally staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it could be appropriate to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration.

Or. en

Amendment 335

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) The effects of national return measures should continue to be given a Union dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all Member States. The length of an entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case, including considerations in relation to the right to family life. When an irregularly staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it could be counter-productive to impose an entry ban by disincentivising voluntary return.

Or. en

Amendment 336

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) The effects of national return measures should continue to be given a Union dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all Member States. The length of an entry ban, which can be a lifelong ban, should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case. When an illegally staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it could be appropriate to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration.

Or. fr

Amendment 337

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20a) According to the 1951 Geneva Convention, a person in need of international protection is not required to possess identity or travel documents, nor to enter the territory through regular channels. Entry bans should therefore never be imposed for the sole reason of the irregular stay of a person. Such measures risk preventing access to the asylum procedure for individuals in need of international protection and may hinder the exercise of the right to an effective remedy. Entry bans should only be applied following a thorough, individual assessment and solely where strictly necessary, taking into account personal circumstances, humanitarian considerations, and the principle of proportionality.

Or. en

Amendment 338

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Third-country nationals can be returned by coercive measures through removal or by voluntarily complying with the obligation to leave. The two types of return should be linked to avoid gaps in the system. Whereas cooperating third-country nationals should continue to be returned primarily through voluntary return, reinforced rules on removal seek to ensure a direct and immediate consequence in case the third-country national does not respect the date by which they need to leave. Coercive measures should be subject to the principles of proportionality and effectiveness with regard to the means used and objectives pursued.

(21) To ensure a swift, credible, and effective return system, a return decision should impose an enforceable obligation to return. Compliance with this obligation should primarily be facilitated through a clearly defined period for voluntary departure, which should in principle not exceed 30 days. However, experience has shown that third-country nationals from countries designated as safe countries of origin present a heightened risk of absconding and non-compliance, thereby frustrating the return process and placing an undue burden on national systems. For this reason, a period for voluntary departure should, as a rule, not be granted to such persons, and their return decision should require them to leave immediately. Where a period for voluntary departure is granted but not complied with, or where an immediate departure is ordered, the third-country national becomes subject to enforcement by removal. At this stage, measures to prevent absconding, such as alternatives to detention or detention, may be applied to ensure the return can be carried out. Nevertheless, the possibility for a third-country national to comply voluntarily with their return obligation should remain available at all stages of the procedure, even after they have become subject to removal.

Or. en

Amendment 339

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Third-country nationals should never be returned by coercive measures as this is a violation of the right to dignity.

Or. en

Amendment 340

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Third-country nationals who have not complied with the obligation to leave or to whom a period to voluntary return has not been granted, can be removed by using coercive measures. Reinforced rules on removal seek to ensure a direct and immediate consequence in case the third-country national does not respect the period by which they need to leave at the latest as well as to prevent secondary movements and security risks. Where there are no reasons to believe that voluntary return would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, cooperating third country nationals may continue to be returned primarily through voluntary return.

Or. en

Amendment 341

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Third-country nationals can be returned by voluntarily complying with the obligation to leave or, in certain limited cases and as a last resort, through removal. Third-country nationals should continue to be returned primarily through voluntary return. Coercive measures should only be used as a measure of last resort and must be subject to the principles of proportionality and effectiveness with regard to the means used and objectives pursued.

Or. en

Amendment 342

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Third-country nationals can be returned by coercive measures through removal or by voluntarily complying with the obligation to leave. The two types of return should be linked to avoid gaps in the system. Depending on the circumstances, it should be possible to return cooperating third-country nationals through voluntary or forced return, but the rules on removal must be reinforced to ensure a direct and immediate consequence in case the third-country national does not respect the date by which they need to leave.

Or. fr

Amendment 343

Murielle Laurent

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Third-country nationals can be returned by removal or by accepting the return decision and complying with the obligation to leave. Priority should continue to be given to encouraging third-country nationals to accept the return decision and comply with the obligation to leave. The rules on removal should allow for a removal where the third-country national does not respect the date by which they need to leave, provided that date for leaving has not been extended by the Member State. Coercive measures should be a measure of last resort and always be subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued.

Or. en

Justification

Aligning with amendments tabled to Articles 12 and 13.

Amendment 344

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Third country nationals who have not complied with the obligation to leave, or to whom a period for voluntary return has not been granted, can be removed by using coercive measures. Reinforced rules on removal seek to ensure a direct and immediate consequence in case the third-country national does not respect the period by which they need to leave at the latest as well as to prevent secondary movements and security risks. Where there are no reasons to believe that voluntary return would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, cooperating third country nationals may continue to be returned primarily through voluntary return.

Or. en

Amendment 345

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Ana Miguel Pedro, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Third-country nationals can be returned by coercive measures through removal or by voluntarily complying with the obligation to leave. The two types of return should be linked to avoid gaps in the system. Whereas cooperating third-country nationals may be returned through voluntary return, reinforced rules on removal seek to ensure a direct and immediate consequence in case the third-country national does not respect the date by which they need to leave or ceases to cooperate. Coercive measures should be subject to the principles of proportionality and effectiveness with regard to the means used and objectives pursued.

Or. en

Amendment 346

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 21 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21a) If a Member State chooses to implement a return policy, which always has to be voluntary, a minimum period for voluntary departure of six months should be granted. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for based on the specific circumstances of an individual case, including to children to finish their studies, to pregnant women to give birth to their children, to victims of trafficking waiting for justice while their case is pending or to sick persons with healthcare needs amongst others.

Or. en

Amendment 347

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 21 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21b) In order to support third-country nationals who would like to return voluntarily, Member States should have operational programmes providing for case management, enhanced return assistance and counselling, which should include support for reintegration in third countries of return, taking into account the common standards on Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programmes developed by the Commission in cooperation with Member States and endorsed by the Council. Voluntary return, assisted voluntary return and reintegration programmes could allow migrants to return in a humane, dignified and rights-based manner. Voluntary return should be allowed at all stages of the procedure.

Or. en

Amendment 348

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) Common rules are necessary to ensure that third-country nationals posing security risks and with no right to stay in the Union are efficiently identified and swiftly returned. It is necessary to ensure that relevant checks are carried out to identify and flag third-country nationals with security risks including by relying on the screening process as set out in Regulation 2024/1356 of the European Parliament and of the Council11 . For third-country nationals posing security risks, removal should be the rule, and it should be possible to derogate from the general rules in order to provide for longer entry bans, longer detention periods and from the use of the use of specialised detention facilities so that those who threaten the security of Union are swiftly removed.

deleted

_________________

11 Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 introducing the screening of third-country nationals at the external borders and amending Regulations (EC) No 767/2008, (EU) 2017/2226, (EU) 2018/1240 and (EU) 2019/817 (OJ L 2024/1356, 22.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1356/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 349

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) For third-country nationals posing a threat to internal security, removal should be possible without granting a period for voluntary departure, and it should be possible to provide for longer entry bans, longer detention periods and to derogate from the use of specialised detention facilities so that those who threaten the security of a Member State are swiftly removed.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 350

Murielle Laurent

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) While respecting the criminal justice systems of the Member States, common rules are necessary to ensure that third-country nationals posing a risk to internal security and with no right to stay in the Union are efficiently identified and swiftly returned. It is necessary to ensure that relevant checks are carried out to identify third-country nationals that constitute a risk to internal security risks, including by relying on the screening process as set out in Regulation 2024/1356 of the European Parliament and of the Council11 . For third-country nationals that pose a risk to internal security, removal should be the rule, and longer entry bans may be imposed, as may longer detention periods, with the aim of ensuring that those posing a risk to internal security within the Union are swiftly removed.

_________________

Or. en

Justification

Language aligned with amendments to the operative part, notably on Article 16.

Amendment 351

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) Common rules to support are necessary to ensure that third-country nationals posing security risks and with no right to stay in the Union are efficiently identified and swiftly returned. It is necessary to ensure that relevant checks are carried out to identify and flag third-country nationals with security risks including by relying on the screening process as set out in national law as well as appropriate agreements between Member States. For third-country nationals posing security risks, removal should be the rule, and it should be possible to derogate from the general rules in order to provide for longer entry bans, longer detention periods and from the use of the use of specialised detention facilities so that those who threaten the security of Union are swiftly removed.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 352

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 353

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) Common rules are necessary to ensure that third-country nationals posing security risks and with no right to stay in the Union are efficiently identified and swiftly returned. It is necessary to ensure that relevant checks are carried out to identify and flag third-country nationals with security risks including by relying on the screening process as set out in Regulation 2024/1356 of the European Parliament and of the Council11 . For third-country nationals posing security risks, removal should be the rule, and it should be possible to derogate from the general rules in order to provide for lifelong entry bans, longer detention periods and from the use of the use of specialised detention facilities so that those who threaten the security of Union are swiftly removed.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 354

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) Common rules are necessary to ensure that third-country nationals posing security risks and with no right to enter or stay in the Union are efficiently identified and swiftly returned. It is necessary to ensure that relevant checks are carried out to identify and flag third-country nationals with security risks including by relying on the screening process as set out in Regulation 2024/1356 of the European Parliament and of the Council11 . For third-country nationals posing security risks, removal should be the rule, and it should be possible to derogate from the general rules in order to provide for longer entry bans, longer detention periods and from the use of the use of detention facilities so that those who threaten the security of Union are swiftly removed.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 355

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22a) Member States should establish in their national law an exhaustive list of specific and objective criteria to guarantee that a return is carried out genuinely voluntarily, including the absence of any physical, psychological, or material pressure. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) should develop guidelines to support Member States in defining and applying these criteria.

Or. en

Amendment 356

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 357

Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 358

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23) New rules should extend the possibilities for Member States to ensure returns to third countries through additional tools. It should be possible to put in place specific agreements or arrangements with third countries for the purpose of providing Member States with more options for returns subject to the conditions that the international human right standards and, in case of removal, the principle of non-refoulement are respected by the third country concerned. Deficiencies in relation to specific parts of the territory of the third country or to identifiable category of persons should not prevent the conclusions of such an agreement or arrangement, provided that sufficient guarantees are in place to ensure the full respect of the rights of the third country nationals which are concerned by such agreement or arrangement. In particular, the agreement or arrangement should set out the procedures applicable to the return, the conditions for the stay in the country, the obligations of the third country and the consequences in case of violations of the agreement or arrangement. Where an agreement or an arrangement involves onward return from the third country, the agreement or arrangement should in addition set out the consequences in case onward return is not possible, the obligations and responsibilities of the Member State or the EU and the third country, the consequences in case of significant changes adversely impacting the situation in the third country.

Or. en

Amendment 359

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23) The possibilities for Member States to carry out returns to third countries of origin or habitual residence must be subject to the conditions that the third countries concerned have not only signed and ratified the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its additional protocols, as well as other international human rights treaties, but also demonstrate effective compliance with these obligations, fully guaranteeing respect for the principle of non-refoulement and the protection of the individuals concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 360

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 361

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 362

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 363

Irena Joveva

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23) New rules should extend the possibilities for Member States to ensure returns to third countries through additional tools. It should be possible to put in place specific agreements with third countries for the purpose of providing Member States with more options for returns subject to the conditions that the international human right standards and the principle of non-refoulement are respected by the third country concerned. In particular, the agreement should set out the modalities of transfer, the conditions for the stay in the country, the modalities in case of onward return to the country of origin, the consequences in case of violations or of significant changes adversely impacting the situation in the third country, and an independent monitoring body or mechanism to assess the implementation of the agreement. Such agreements will constitute an implementation of Union law for the purposes of Article 51 (1) of the Charter. Considering the higher risk of disproportionate harm, it is necessary, in order to safeguard fundamental rights, to exclude unaccompanied minors, families with minors, and vulnerable persons from return procedure to third countries.

Or. en

Amendment 364

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Irena Joveva

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23) New rules should extend the possibilities for Member States to ensure returns to third countries through additional tools. It should be possible to put in place specific agreements, preferably between the EU and third countries for the purpose of providing Member States with more options for returns subject to the conditions that the international human right standards and the principle of non-refoulement are respected by the third country concerned. In particular, the agreement or arrangement should set out the modalities of transfer, the conditions for the stay in the country, the modalities in case of onward return to the country of origin, the consequences in case of violations or of significant changes adversely impacting the situation in the third country, and an independent monitoring body or mechanism to assess the implementation of the agreement. Such agreements should ensure that any facility to be established under their framework where third country nationals stay in the country is EU-run and EU-owned and as such subject to Union law for the purposes of Article 51 (1) of the Charter.

Or. en

Amendment 365

Charlie Weimers, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23a) Upon concluding agreements or arrangements with third countries, Member States should be required to inform the Commission and other Member States of such agreements or arrangements before they are provisionally applied, or enter into force, whichever is the earliest. Where a Member State negotiates an agreement or arrangement with one of the Union’s neighbouring third countries, the Member States that share a common land border with that third country should also be kept informed of the negotiations, in full respect of the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union. In addition, in order to avoid any non-compliance with Union law and to further enhance transparency, Member States should be able, on a voluntary basis, to keep the Commission and other Member States informed of the progress of negotiations with a third country relating to agreements or arrangements authorised by this Regulation, before final agreement has been reached by the parties, including with a view to seeking the Commission’s assessment as to the compatibility of the envisaged agreement or arrangement under negotiation with Union law.

Or. en

Amendment 366

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23a) If certain third countries fail to cooperate to readmit nationals apprehended while staying in the Union illegally and fail to cooperate effectively in the return process, Member States and the Union must show solidarity and may adopt coercive measures if the obstacles persist, including diplomatic retaliation, visa restrictions, limits on economic cooperation and reduction of development aid, with a view to ensuring compliance with the readmission obligations.

Or. fr

Amendment 367

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23a) Member States should inform the Commission and the other Member States of any such agreements or arrangements before their provisional application or entry into force, ensuring transparency, operational awareness, and consistency with Union law. Where negotiations concern a neighbouring third country, Member States sharing a land border with that country should also be kept informed, in line with the principle of sincere cooperation and the need for coordinated action at the external borders.

Or. en

Amendment 368

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23a) To ensure efficient use of national resources and to strengthen administrative control at the external borders, Member States and the European Commission should establish agreements with third countries to develop facilities that serve both for the coordination of return operations and for the registration or examination of applications for international protection.

Or. en

Amendment 369

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) A well-functioning Schengen area without internal borders relies on the effective and efficient application by the Member States of the relevant acquis. Council Regulation (EU) 2022/922 establishes an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis by means of periodic, unannounced and thematic evaluations, including in relation to the effective return of third-country nationals with no right to stay and the respect of fundamental rights. This mechanism allows to swiftly identify deficiencies that could disrupt the correct functioning of the Schengen area and ensures that those deficiencies are duly addressed.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 370

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 371

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 372

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) A well-functioning Schengen area without internal borders relies on the application by the Member States of the relevant acquis. Council Regulation (EU) 2022/922 establishes an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis by means of periodic, unannounced and thematic evaluations, including in relation to the effective return of third-country nationals with no right to stay and the respect of fundamental rights.

Or. en

Amendment 373

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) A well-functioning Schengen area without internal borders relies on the effective and efficient application by the Member States of the relevant acquis. Council Regulation (EU) 2022/922 establishes an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis by means of periodic, unannounced and thematic evaluations, including in relation to the return policy and the respect of fundamental rights and data protection. This mechanism allows to swiftly identify deficiencies in the application of the Schengen acquis that could disrupt the correct functioning of the Schengen area and ensures that those deficiencies are duly addressed.

Or. en

Amendment 374

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) A well-functioning Schengen area without internal borders relies on the effective and efficient application by the Member States of the relevant acquis. Council Regulation (EU) 2022/922 establishes an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis by means of periodic, unannounced and thematic evaluations, including in relation to the effective return of third-country nationals with no right to enter or stay and the respect of fundamental rights. This mechanism allows to swiftly identify deficiencies that could disrupt the correct functioning of the Schengen area and ensures that those deficiencies are duly addressed.

Or. en

Amendment 375

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 24 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24a) In order to ensure compliance with EU and international law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights in all procedures taking place in the context of return, including the return border procedure, each Member State should establish an independent monitoring mechanism covering in particular the respect for the principle of non-refoulement. This mechanism should be equipped with the necessary resources and safeguards to ensure its independence, and should involve, in particular, National Ombudspersons and national human rights institutions, including National Preventive Mechanisms, and should ensure the participation or at least a close cooperation with national and international relevant civil society organisations and human rights defenders. Member States should ensure that the mechanism has full access to relevant persons, documents and locations so that it can effectively carry out its tasks. It should also ensure that substantiated allegations of fundamental rights violations are reported through a confidential, child- and gender-sensitive complaint system and addressed effectively and without undue delay, leading where appropriate to the identification and sanctioning of those responsible. The Fundamental Rights Agency should provide general guidance and Member States may seek its support. The monitoring mechanism should be able to issue recommendations and publish an annual report and its existence should be without prejudice to the monitoring of fundamental rights provided by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s.

Or. en

Amendment 376

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 24 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24a) In addition, independent monitoring mechanisms are necessary for ensuring that returns and in particular removals are implemented in full compliance with fundamental rights. To ensure their independence, such mechanisms may for example be established within National Ombudspersons and national human rights institutions, including national preventive mechanisms established under the OPCAT, and may involve relevant international and non-governmental organisations and public bodies independent from the authorities. Member States should consider requesting the Fundamental Rights Agency to support them in developing their independent monitoring mechanism, including the safeguards for independence of such mechanisms, as well as the monitoring methodology and appropriate training schemes.

Or. en

Amendment 377

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 378

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) The best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying return procedures, in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter and the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In assessing the individual best interests of the child, Member States should, in particular, take due account of family reunification possibilities, the minor’s well-being and social development in the short, medium and long term, safety and security considerations, in particular where there is a risk of the minor being a victim of any form of violence or exploitation, including trafficking in human beings, and the views of the minor in accordance with his or her age and maturity, including his or her ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background. The unaccompanied minor should be guided by a representative through all the steps of the return process. . The representative should act with full independence and be subject to appropriate accountability mechanisms, and must possess the necessary expertise to ensure that the child’s interests are safeguarded and that their legal, social, medical and psychological needs are adequately addressed throughout the return procedure. The representative should also be able to access legal aid providers.

Or. en

Amendment 379

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 380

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) The best interests of the child should be taken into consideration by Member States when applying return procedures, in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter and the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. During the return process, consideration must be given to the special vulnerabilities of unaccompanied minors.

Or. fr

Amendment 381

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) The best interests of the child should be the primary consideration of Member States, in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter and the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In assessing the individual best interests of the child, Member States should, in particular, take due account of the minor’s well-being and social development in the short, medium and long term, safety and security considerations and the views of the minor in accordance with his or her age and maturity, including his or her background. The unaccompanied minor should be guided by a representative through all the steps of the return process. The representative should act with full independence and be subject to appropriate accountability mechanisms, and must possess the necessary expertise to ensure that the child’ interests are safeguarded and that their legal, social, medical and psychological needs are adequately addressed throughout the return procedure.

Or. en

Amendment 382

Murielle Laurent

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Aligned with amendments to Article 20.

Amendment 383

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 384

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25a) Children's rights apply equally to unaccompanied and separated children to children within families. In the case of families, Member States should respect and protect the rights of each child, including their right to private and family life, and should fully take into account the child’s safety and well-being within the family. Appropriate care and accommodation arrangements that enable children and families to live together within the community should be ensured. Children should not be separated from their parents in line with the principles of family unity and the best interests of the child. Forced return of children should never occur. Children and families should be provided with documentation confirming that they are undergoing an ongoing procedure and should not be subject to detention. Children and parents should be ensured access to education, health care, and other essential services.

Or. en

Amendment 385

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25a) The significant number of third-country nationals arriving without identity documents presents a major challenge for age assessment procedures. Granting the benefit of the doubt in all cases, while necessary as an initial safeguard, can undermine the credibility of the return system if not properly managed. To ensure that protection is targeted effectively at the most vulnerable, this Regulation introduces a distinction between a ‘minor’ (below 18) and a ‘child’ (below 16). This allows the Union to apply the highest level of safeguards to younger children, whose vulnerability is greatest, thereby maintaining the integrity of the procedures applicable to all persons claiming to be minors.

Or. en

Amendment 386

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) Where there are grounds for doubting as to whether or not the third-country national is a minor, an age assessment should be carried out. For the purpose of ensuring coherence across migration management in the Union the same procedure as provided for in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council12 should be followed. When carrying out age assessments, Member States should in particular take into account relevant guidelines from the European Union Agency for Asylum.

(26) Where there are grounds for doubting as to whether or not the third-country national is a minor, an age assessment may be carried out. A third-country national asserting to be under the age of eighteen shall be presumed to be a child and shall benefit from the rights and safeguards afforded to minors under this Regulation, until such assessment determines their age. This presumption shall not apply only where it would be clearly unreasonable in light of objective and verifiable evidence. Given the inherent margin of error in all age assessment methods, any uncertainty in the outcome of the determination shall be resolved in favour of considering the individual a child. Multi-disciplinary age assessments shall be conducted in a manner that is safe, child, gender and culturally sensitive, ensuring full respect for human dignity, and children shall have the right to request that examinations be conducted by an individual of the same sex. The same procedure as provided for in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council12 should be followed. When carrying out age assessments, Member States should in particular take into account relevant guidelines from the European Union Agency for Asylum.

_________________

12 Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU (OJ L 222, 22.5.2024, p. 1).

Or. en

Amendment 387

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) Where there are grounds for doubting as to whether or not the third-country national is a minor, an age assessment may be carried out. A third-country national asserting to be under the age of eighteen shall be presumed to be a child and shall benefit from the rights and safeguards afforded to minors under this Directive, until such assessment determines their age. For the purpose of ensuring coherence across migration management in the Union the same procedure as provided for in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council12 should be followed. When carrying out age assessments, Member States should in particular take into account relevant guidelines from the European Union Agency for Asylum. Given the inherent margin of error in all age assessment methods, any uncertainty in the outcome of the age determination shall be resolved in favour of considering the third-country national a child.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 388

Murielle Laurent

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) Where there are grounds for doubting as to whether or not the third-country national is a minor, and where an age assessment has not previously been carried out as part of asylum procedure, an age assessment should be carried out. For the purpose of ensuring coherence across migration management in the Union the same procedure as provided for in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council12 should be followed. When carrying out age assessments, Member States should in particular take into account relevant guidelines from the European Union Agency for Asylum. Where the result of such an assessment is inconclusive with regard to the age of the third-country national, the competent authorities should conclude that the third-country national is a minor.

_________________

Or. en

Justification

Aligned with amendments to Article 20.

Amendment 389

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) Where there are grounds for doubting as to whether or not the third-country national is a minor, an age assessment should be carried out. Member States should rely on age assessments completed under previous procedures.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 390

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) Where there are grounds for doubting as to whether or not the third-country national is a minor, an age assessment should be carried out. Member States rely on age assessments completed under previous procedures.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 391

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) In cases where there are doubts as to whether a third-country national is a minor, Member States should carry out an age assessment. To ensure a coherent and consistent approach across the Union’s migration and asylum framework, the procedures for such assessments should, as a general rule, follow the multi-disciplinary model provided for in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council12. However, to ensure that this Regulation remains adaptable to scientific and technological advancements, Member States should have the flexibility to provide in their national law for the use of other scientifically-validated methods, provided that such methods guarantee an equivalent or higher level of accuracy, or are more cost-effective.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 392

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) Where there are grounds for doubting as to whether or not the third-country national is a minor, a medical age assessment, including bone and dental assessment, should be carried out to ensure an accurate recording of the age of the third-country national.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 393

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Ana Miguel Pedro, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) Where there are grounds for doubting as to whether or not the third-country national is a minor, an age assessment should be carried out. Any previous age assessment conducted by competent authorities should be taken into account to avoid unnecessary duplication and to ensure consistency. For the purpose of ensuring coherence across migration management in the Union the same procedure as provided for in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council12 should be followed. When carrying out age assessments, Member States should in particular take into account relevant guidelines from the European Union Agency for Asylum.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 394

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) Where there are grounds for doubting as to whether or not the third-country national is a minor, an age assessment should be carried out, including medical tests, such as bone tests, as provided for in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council12, for the purpose of ensuring coherence across migration management in the Union.

_________________

Or. fr

Amendment 395

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear responsibilities for third-country nationals should be established. Third country-nationals should cooperate with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure. Third-country nationals should remain available and provide the necessary information to prepare the return. In case the obligations to cooperate are not respected, effective and proportionate consequences should be imposed, including for instance reduced benefits and allowances granted in accordance with national law, seizure of travel documents or the extension of the duration of an entry ban. The competent authorities should inform the third-country national of the different steps of return procedure, their obligations and the consequences of not complying with those obligations.

(27) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear obligations of third-country nationals should be established. Third country-nationals should have the obligation to leave the territory of the Member States and to cooperate with the authorities throughout the return procedure. Third-country nationals should remain available to, and reachable by, the competent authorities and provide any information relevant to preparing and carrying out the return. It follows that it should primarily be the responsibility of the third-country national to establish their identity and to obtain and provide the travel documents necessary for return. In case the obligations to leave and cooperate are not respected, effective and proportionate consequences should be imposed, and competent authorities should take the relevant steps to ensure return, including through investigative measures. Third-country nationals who cannot be removed, including due to the principle of non-refoulement or due to their lack of cooperation with the competent authorities, should not be excluded from the imposition of general obligations, including the obligations to remain, reside and report. The consequences should include for instance reduced benefits and allowances granted in accordance with national law or seizure of travel documents.

Or. en

Amendment 396

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear responsibilities for third-country nationals should be established. Third-country nationals should cooperate with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure, including by remaining available and providing the necessary information to prepare the return. In the event of non-compliance with these obligations, effective, proportionate, and dissuasive consequences should be imposed. In particular, the seizure of identity or travel documents is a necessary measure to prevent their destruction or concealment and to facilitate the identification process, and should therefore be applied systematically, provided that the person concerned receives a copy. Furthermore, Member States should retain the flexibility to adopt additional administrative measures or sanctions under their national law to ensure the effective enforcement of return procedures. The competent authorities should inform the third-country national of the different steps of the return procedure, their obligations, and the consequences of non-compliance.

Or. en

Amendment 397

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear responsibilities for third-country nationals and for their countries of origin and transit should be established. Third country-nationals should be obliged to cooperate with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure, on pain of penalties. Third-country nationals should remain available and provide the necessary information to prepare the return. In case the obligations to cooperate are not respected, effective and tangible consequences should be imposed, including for instance reduction or withdrawal of the benefits and allowances granted in accordance with national law, seizure of travel documents or the extension of the duration of an entry ban. Third countries should cooperate with the authorities during the readmission stage, on pain of penalties. The competent authorities should inform the third-country national of the different steps of return procedure, their obligations and the consequences of not complying with those obligations.

Or. fr

Amendment 398

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27) The consequences arising from a possible absence of cooperation of the third-country national in the return procedure must always be individualised, proportionate, and non-discriminatory, and under no circumstances may they affect access to fundamental rights. The competent authorities should inform the third-country national in an accessible and understandable manner, in a language the person understands, of the different steps of return procedure, their rights, their obligations, the consequences of not complying with those obligations and the possible avenues for appeal and international protection.

Or. en

Amendment 399

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, responsibilities for third-country nationals should be communicated to the third-country national in a tailored manner that ensures that the person is well-informed and able to engage in the procedure. Third country-nationals, given an effective opportunity to do so, should cooperate with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure. Third-country nationals should remain available and provide the necessary information to prepare the return. In case the obligations to cooperate are repeatedly and deliberately not respected, effective and proportionate administrative consequences may be imposed based on clearly defined and transparent criteria. The competent authorities should inform the third-country national of the different steps of return procedure, their obligations and the consequences of not complying with those obligations.

Or. en

Amendment 400

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear obligations for third-country nationals should be established. Third country-nationals should cooperate with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure. Third-country nationals should remain available and provide the necessary information to prepare the return. In case the obligations to cooperate are not respected, effective, dissuasive and proportionate consequences should be imposed, including for instance reduced benefits and allowances granted in accordance with national law, seizure of travel documents, restriction of freedom of movement or the extension of the duration of an entry ban. The competent authorities should inform the third-country national of the different steps of return procedure, their obligations and the consequences of not complying with those obligations.

Or. en

Amendment 401

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear obligations of third-country nationals should be established. Third country nationals should have the obligation to leave the territory of the Member States and to cooperate with the authorities throughout the return procedure. Third-country nationals should remain available to and reachable by, the competent authorities and provide the necessary information to prepare the return. In case the obligations to cooperate are not respected, effective consequences should be imposed, including for instance cut of benefits and allowances granted, seizure of travel documents and imposing an entry ban. The competent authorities should inform the third-country national of the different steps of return procedure, as well as obligations and the consequences of not complying with those obligations.

Or. en

Amendment 402

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27) To facilitate an effective, dignified and sustainable return, certain responsibilities should be established for the third-country nationals themselves. Third country-nationals subject to a return decision should cooperate with the authorities at all stages. They should remain available and provide whatever information they have that is relevant for the return. In case of a repeated refusal to cooperate with the competent authorities, certain penalties may be imposed, including for instance, the extension of the duration of an entry ban. The competent authorities should inform the third-country national fully on all of the different steps of return procedure, their rights, including their right to an effective remedy, and their responsibilities and the possible consequences of not accepting those responsibilities.

Or. en

Justification

In line with amendments tabled to Articles 21 and 22.

Amendment 403

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Irena Joveva, Abir Al-Sahlani

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27a) In cases where the third-country national is forcibly returned to a facility outside of the EU, established in the framework of an agreement with a third country, this should be specified in the return decision. It should further indicate the modalities of the stay, including any requirements to remain available within a geographical area, and subsequent onward return. The third-country national should receive specific information by the competent authorities on his or her rights and obligations concerning the return process to, in and from these facilities. At any given moment during his or her stay at the facility, the third-country national should have the possibility to return voluntarily to a third country.

Or. en

Amendment 404

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27a) The reliable establishment and verification of the identity of third-country nationals is a cornerstone of a well-managed migration and return system. In this context, the obligation to provide biometric data is essential to prevent the use of multiple or false identities. Such practices can severely undermine the integrity of the Union’s asylum and return systems, for instance by enabling an individual to create multiple files, thereby placing an unjustified administrative burden on national authorities, or by allowing a third-country national to obstruct or evade an obligation to return.

Or. en

Amendment 405

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27a) It is necessary to ensure that third-country nationals are provided with all relevant information on the return procedure in a language they understand. In particular, Member States should have the obligation to provide timely and adequate information to third-country nationals on the process of return including in relation to the different stages of the return procedure, the granting of a period for voluntary departure, the possibility to impose detention, available remedies, and access to programmes providing legal, logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.

Or. en

Amendment 406

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27a) Obligations and measures not related to return, do not fall within the scope of these provisions. In this regard Articles 21 et seq. do not affect the provisions governing consequences on social benefits under national law.

Or. en

Amendment 407

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(28) This Regulation should not affect the possibility for Member States to impose, where applicable, criminal sanctions in accordance with national criminal law to third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Regulation.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 408

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 409

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Justification

No corresponding Article in the text.

Amendment 410

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 28 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(28a) In accordance with Directive 2009/52/EC, Member States should ensure that there are effective mechanisms through which third-country nationals can lodge complaints against their employers. In accordance with Directive 2012/29/EU, Member States should ensure that all victims of crime receive appropriate information, support and protection and are able to participate in criminal proceedings. To this end, adequate mechanisms ensuring portable justice and access to redress mechanisms should be established as part of the national programmes on return and should ensure access to justice for issues relating to violations of Directive 2009/52/EC or Directive 2012/29/EU throughout the return procedure, including measures to ensure access to justice after return to a third country.

Or. en

Amendment 411

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29) A set of legal remedies against decisions related to return should be established to guarantee effective protection of the interests of the individuals concerned, in line with the right to an effective remedy. The necessary legal aid should be made available, upon request, to those who lack sufficient resources in cases of appeal or review before a judicial authority. However, to ensure the efficiency and integrity of the return procedure and to prevent abuse of the legal aid system, it is appropriate to provide for specific, well-defined limitations on this right. In particular, where an appeal is lodged by a national of a country designated as safe, or where the substance of the appeal has already been examined with the benefit of legal assistance in a related procedure, the need for state-funded support should be diminished.

Or. en

Amendment 412

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29) A set of legal remedies against decisions related to return should be established to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the individuals concerned. The necessary legal aid should be made available, upon request, in cases of appeal or review before a judicial authority without prejudice to the right to restrict access to legal assistance and representation. Verification by the judicial authority whether the Member State has complied with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement is only possible in relation to the decisions where compliance with the principle of non-refoulement is assessed. Therefore, the judicial authority can only verify in the legal procedures regarding the return decision and/or the decision ordering the removal whether the Member State complies with this principle.

Or. en

Amendment 413

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29) A set of legal remedies against decisions related to return should be established to guarantee effective protection of the interests of the individuals concerned. The necessary legal aid should be made available, upon request, to those who lack sufficient resources in cases of appeal or review before a judicial authority. The judicial authority reviewing a return decision performs its functions regardless of its designation under national law. The organisation of the appeal system, including the number of possible remedies and the rules governing any further appeals and their suspensive effect, remains determined by national law.

Or. en

Amendment 414

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29) Appeals against return decisions are subject to national law of a Member States concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 415

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 416

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. fr

Amendment 417

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 418

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29a) Judicial authority means an authority acting as a third party in relation to the authority which adopted the decision forming the subject matter of the proceedings. The authority should perform judicial functions and is not decisive whether that authority is recognized as a court or tribunal under national law. This regulation should not affect Member States’ competence to organize their national court system and determine the number of the instances of appeal. Where national law provides for the possibility to lodge further appeals against a first appeal or subsequent appeals decision, the procedure and suspensive effect of such appeals should be regulated in national law, in accordance with Union law and international obligations.

Or. en

Amendment 419

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29a) In order to deter manifestly unfounded or abusive appeals, judicial authorities should be empowered to make preliminary determinations on the merits of a case, and Member States should provide for the recovery of costs in cases that are judicially confirmed to be abusive or to have no tangible prospect of success.

Or. en

Amendment 420

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29b) Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 constitutes the specific and appropriate legal framework for assessing international protection needs and the risk of refoulement. Therefore, where the procedure under that Regulation applies or has been applied, the assessment of compliance with the principle of non-refoulement should be conducted exclusively within that framework. To ensure legal certainty and avoid the duplication of assessments and mixing of procedures, judicial remedies under this Regulation should not serve as a mechanism to re-litigate protection claims already examined and rejected under the asylum procedure. Any new elements or findings arising after that decision should be addressed through a renewed application under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, rather than through the remedies provided for in this Regulation.

Or. en

Amendment 421

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30) To improve the effectiveness of the return procedures, while ensuring the respect of the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter, appeals against return related decisions should be challenged as far as possible before one judicial level. The rules of this Regulation 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.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 422

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 423

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30) To improve the effectiveness and swiftness of return procedures, while ensuring full respect for the right to an effective remedy, it is necessary to avoid the fragmentation of legal challenges and to prevent undue delays caused by successive appeals. Therefore, appeals against related decisions should be consolidated into a single judicial proceeding. In particular, where a return decision is issued as a direct consequence of the rejection of an application for international protection, any appeal against the return decision should be lodged jointly with the appeal against the negative asylum decision, ensuring a seamless judicial review and preventing procedural gaps. Similarly, in other cases, appeals against a return decision and any accompanying measures, such as an entry ban, should be examined together by the same judicial authority. It is important to underline that such an appeal should not have suspensive effect.

Or. en

Amendment 424

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30) To improve the effectiveness of the return procedures, the rules of this Regulation 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.

Or. en

Amendment 425

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. fr

Amendment 426

Murielle Laurent

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30) To improve the effectiveness of the return procedures, while ensuring the respect of the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter, and with a view to accelerating examination of an appeal and reducing the burden on competent judicial authorities, an appeal against a return related decision should have suspensive effect until the outcome of that appeal. The rules of this Regulation 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.

Or. en

Justification

Aligned with amendments to Article 28.

Amendment 427

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30) Return procedure should ensure the respect of the principle of non-refoulement and the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter, guaranteeing in all cases automatic suspensive effect of appeals lodged against decisions that may result in return, in order to prevent risks of violations of fundamental rights or return to situations of risk to life.

Or. en

Amendment 428

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30) To improve the effectiveness of the return procedures, while ensuring the respect of the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter, appeals against return related decisions should be challenged as far as possible before one judicial level. The rules of this Regulation related to appeals and should comply with the right to an effective remedy as provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Or. en

Amendment 429

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30a) Whereas, in order to ensure the swiftness and efficiency of the return process and to prevent return procedures from being unduly delayed by successive or unfounded legal challenges against ancillary measures, it is appropriate to allow Member States to streamline the available legal remedies. To this end, Member States should have the possibility to provide in their national law that specific measures imposed solely as a consequence of non-cooperation are not separately appealable.

Or. en

Amendment 430

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30a) The judicial authorities should be able to suspend the enforcement of a return decision in individual cases where the principle of non refoulement is at stake and for other reasons, either upon request of the third-country national concerned or acting ex officio, where deemed necessary.

Or. en

Amendment 431

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30b) Legal assistance should be made available, free of charge. National legislation should establish the modalities in order to access free legal assistance.

Or. en

Amendment 432

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 31

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(31) Member States should be provided with the necessary tools for assessing, managing and preventing the risk of absconding. Common rules should streamline the assessment of this risk in individual cases and seek to increase the use of efficient alternatives to detention in Member States to effectively manage the return process.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 433

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 31

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(31) Member States should be provided with the necessary tools to ensure a swift and effective return, including measures as consequences of non-compliance and incentives for compliance with the obligations to leave and cooperate, as well as measures to prevent the risk of absconding. Common rules, without restricting the right of Member States to establish additional measures and criteria in national law, should streamline requirements under the obligation to cooperate and the criteria for determining a risk of absconding. Such rules should also ensure that detention and alternatives to detention are applied in Member States to effectively manage the return process.

Or. en

Amendment 434

Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 31

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(31) Member States should be provided with the necessary tools for assessing, managing and preventing absconding. Absconding include actions such as leaving the territory of the Member State without permission from the competent authorities, for reasons which are not beyond the control of the third country national. Common rules should streamline the assessment of the risk of absconding in individual cases and increase the use of efficient alternatives to detention in Member States to effectively manage the return process.

Or. en

Justification

This example of absconding should be in the recitals rather than in a definition.

Amendment 435

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32) It should be possible to impose detention when proportionate and necessary, following an individual assessment of each case, including consideration of any situation of vulnerability, only for the purpose of preparing return. For this purpose, detention could be imposed when there is a risk that third-country nationals abscond, when third-country nationals hamper or avoid return, or when they pose a security risk, or do not comply with alternatives to detention, or detention is necessary to determine or verify identity or nationality. The authorities should act with due diligence and detention should be maintained only for as short a period as possible and may not exceed 24 months. Where national law provides for the detention of minors, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration. Other less coercive alternative measures to detention should be used when they can be applied effectively to illegally staying third-country nationals.

(32) Under international and European law, including the European Convention of Human Rights and the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, detention for immigration related purposes must be imposed only as a measure of last resort following consideration of less coercive alternatives, based on a detailed, individualised assessment of the need to detain, and it must be subject to independent, prompt and regular judicial review. Member States may therefore only impose detention when proportionate and necessary, following an individual assessment of each case, including consideration of any situation of vulnerability, only for the purpose of preparing return. For this purpose, detention could be imposed when there is a risk that third-country nationals abscond, when third-country nationals hamper or avoid return, when they pose a threat to internal security, or do not comply with alternatives to detention. The authorities should act with due diligence and detention should be maintained only for as short a period as possible and may not exceed 6 months. Children shall not be detained for reasons related to their or their parents’ immigration status. Detention is never in their best interests and must be avoided in all situations, including emergency situations. Other less coercive alternative measures to detention must be assessed before ordering detention, and should be used when they can be applied effectively to irregularly staying third-country nationals.

Or. en

Amendment 436

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32) It should be possible to impose detention when proportionate and necessary for the purpose of preparing for return and removal. For this purpose, detention could be imposed when there is a risk that third-country nationals abscond, when third-country nationals hamper or avoid return, or when they pose a security risk, do not comply with alternatives to detention, or when detention is necessary to determine or verify identity or nationality.

Or. en

Amendment 437

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32) It should be possible to impose detention when proportionate and necessary, following an individual assessment of each case, including consideration of any situation of vulnerability, only for the purpose of preparing return. For this purpose, detention could be imposed when there is a risk that third-country nationals abscond, when third-country nationals hamper or avoid return, or when they pose a security risk, or do not comply with alternatives to detention, or detention is necessary to determine or verify identity or nationality. The authorities should act with due diligence and detention should be maintained only for as short a period as possible and may not exceed 24 months. Detention should be reviewed at regular intervals to verify that the grounds continue to exist and that no less coercive measure can achieve the objectives of preparing return. Before detention is ordered or prolonged, competent authorities should clearly record the reasons why alternative measures cannot ensure effective return. Where national law provides for the detention of minors, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration. Other less coercive alternative measures to detention should be used when they can be applied effectively.

Or. en

Amendment 438

Irena Joveva

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32) It should be possible to impose detention when proportionate and necessary, following an individual assessment of each case, particularly for consideration of any situation of vulnerability. For vulnerable persons and families with minors, alternatives to detention should be available as detaining any such person is detrimental to their physical and mental health. Vulnerable persons should in such cases have access to specialised facilities to cater to their specific needs. For this purpose, detention could be imposed when there is a risk that third-country nationals abscond, when third-country nationals hamper or avoid return, or when they pose a security risk, or do not comply with alternatives to detention, or detention is necessary to determine or verify identity or nationality. The authorities should act with due diligence and detention should be maintained only for as short a period as possible and may not exceed 24 months. Where national law provides for the detention of minors, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration. Other less coercive alternative measures to detention should be used when they can be applied effectively to illegally staying third-country nationals.

Or. en

Amendment 439

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32) It should not be possible to impose detention on a third-country national solely on the basis of their irregular stay. If a Member State decides nevertheless to use detention in the context of return, detention should only be used in the context of return as a measure of last resort, following a detailed and individual assessment and must comply with the principles of proportionality and necessity with regards to the means used and the objectives pursued. The authorities should act with due diligence and detention should be maintained only for as short a period as possible and should not exceed 4 weeks. It should be subject to independent, prompt and regular judicial review.

Or. en

Amendment 440

Murielle Laurent

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32) It should be possible to impose detention, as a measure of last resort, when this is necessary and proportionate, following an individual assessment of each case, including consideration of any situation of vulnerability, and only for the purpose of preparing return. For this purpose, Member States should be able to impose detention when there is a risk that third-country nationals abscond, when third-country nationals deliberately obstruct the return procedure, or when they pose a threat to internal security risk, or in case they repeatedly do not comply with alternatives to detention. The authorities should act with due diligence and detention should be maintained only for as short a period as possible and may not exceed 12 months. Wherever possible, other less coercive alternative measures to detention should be used.

Or. en

Justification

Aligned with amendments to Article 29.

Amendment 441

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32) Detention should be used when it is likely to make the return more effective, following an individual assessment of each case, including consideration of any situation of exceptional vulnerability. For this purpose, detention must be imposed when there is a risk that third-country nationals abscond, when third-country nationals hamper or avoid return, or when they pose a security risk, or do not comply with alternatives to detention, or detention is necessary to determine or verify identity or nationality. The authorities should act with due diligence and detention should be maintained only for as short a period as possible and should not exceed 36 months for third-country nationals who do not pose any risk. Where national law provides for the detention of minors, the best interests of the child should be taken into consideration. Other less coercive alternative measures to detention should be used when they can be applied effectively to illegally staying third-country nationals and do not hamper the return procedure.

Or. fr

Amendment 442

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32) It should be possible to impose detention when proportionate and necessary, following an individual assessment of each case for the purpose of preparing or carrying out the return . The authorities should act with due diligence and detention should be maintained only for as short a period as possible and should generally not exceed 48 months in a given Member State. In cases of absconding to another Member State, previous periods of detention shall not be taken into account when calculating the maximum period of detention. Detention periods under other regulations or directives should not be included in calculating the maximum period of detention. Special needs arising from vulnerability assessment should be addressed during detention. Other less coercive alternative measures to detention may be used when they can be applied effectively to illegally staying third-country nationals.

Or. en

Amendment 443

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32) It should be possible to impose detention when proportionate and necessary, following an individual assessment of each case for the purpose of preparing or carrying out the return. For this purpose, detention could be imposed, for a period in accordance with national law, when there is a risk that third-country nationals abscond, when third-country nationals hamper or avoid return, or when they pose a security risk, or do not comply with alternatives to detention, or detention is necessary to determine or verify identity or nationality. The authorities should act with due diligence and detention should be maintained only for as short a period as possible. Detention periods under other regulations or directives should not be included in calculating detention period.

Or. en

Amendment 444

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32a) In order to guarantee that Member States choosing to implement a return policy abide by fundamental rights safeguards, this Directive should oblige these Member States to provide for alternatives to detention and set out exhaustive and rights-based grounds for the exceptional detention of a third-country national as part of a return procedure and systematically exclude detention in closed spaces. Detention should never be imposed on vulnerable persons. As detention has a particularly detrimental physical and psychological impact on children, whether unaccompanied or separated or with their families, they should not be detained nor should their parents and customary primary caregivers accompanying the children. Detention is never in the best interests of the child.

Or. en

Amendment 445

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32a) Where detention has been maintained for a period of 48 months, the Member State should have the possibility to detain the third country national for new periods not exceeding 12 months, where there is a risk of absconding and where a reasonable prospect of removal has emerged due to new significant information under certain circumstances. The detention should be maintained for the necessary period of time needed.

Or. en

Amendment 446

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(33) Returning third-country nationals who pose a security risk requires specific measures aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of others. It should therefore be possible to detain such third-country nationals for a longer period, while any such detention has to comply with the principle of proportionality.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 447

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 448

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(33) Returning third-country nationals who pose a security risk requires specific measures aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of others. It should therefore be possible to detain such third-country nationals for a period longer than 24 months, while any such detention has to comply with the principle of proportionality.

Or. en

Amendment 449

Milan Uhrík

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(33) Returning third-country nationals who pose a security risk requires specific measures aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of others. It should therefore be possible to detain such third-country nationals for a longer period whereas the rights and freedoms of others should be prioritised and protected.

Or. en

Amendment 450

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(33) Returning third-country nationals who pose a security risk requires specific measures aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of others. It must therefore be possible to detain such third-country nationals for a longer period, while any such detention has to comply with the principle of proportionality.

Or. fr

Amendment 451

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 452

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(34) Third-country nationals in detention should be treated in a humane and dignified manner with respect for their fundamental rights and in compliance with international and national law, taking into account the practical guidelines from the Council of Europe Committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. Detention should, as a rule, take place in specialised detention facilities or dedicated branches of other facilities. Prison accommodation may be resorted to when a Member State cannot provide for such facility keeping the third-country nationals separate from ordinary prisoners if possible. Visits may be subject to authorisation and other appropriate conditions, including prior issuance of an appropriate security clearance issued by a competent authority in accordance with national law. Member States may impose limits to such access by virtue of national law where such limits are objectively necessary for the security, public order or administrative management of the facility.

Or. en

Amendment 453

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(34) Third-country nationals in detention should be treated in a humane and dignified manner with respect for their fundamental rights and in compliance with international and national law, taking into account the practical guidelines from the Council of Europe Committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. This includes ensuring their ability to maintain contact with legal representatives, family members, competent and consular authorities. It may however be necessary for Member States to subject such visits to certain conditions, such as prior authorisation, or to impose proportionate limits. Detention should, as a general rule, take place in specialised detention facilities or dedicated branches of other facilities. Prison accommodation may be resorted to when a Member State cannot provide for such facility keeping the third-country nationals separate from ordinary prisoners.

Or. en

Amendment 454

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 455

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 456

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(34) Third-country nationals in detention should be treated in a humane and dignified manner with respect for their fundamental rights and in compliance with international and national law. Detention should, as a rule, take place in specialised detention facilities or dedicated branches of other facilities. Prison accommodation may be resorted to when a Member State cannot provide for such facility keeping the third-country nationals separate from ordinary prisoners.

Or. fr

Amendment 457

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(34) Returnees in detention should be treated in a humane and dignified manner with respect for their fundamental rights and in compliance with international and national law, taking into account the practical guidelines from the Council of Europe Committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. Detention should, as a rule, take place in specialised detention facilities or dedicated branches of other facilities. Prison accommodation may be resorted to when a Member State cannot provide for such facility keeping the third-country nationals separate from ordinary prisoners and housing them in conditions appropriate to their status and needs.

Or. en

Justification

Aligned with amendments to Article 34(1).

Amendment 458

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 459

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(35) The grounds for detention set out in this Regulation are without prejudice to other grounds for detention, including detention grounds within the framework of criminal proceedings, which are applicable under national law and unrelated to the third-country national’s illegal stay.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 460

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(35) Detention of a third-country national should be permitted only in exceptional circumstances, where it is necessary and proportionate, and strictly limited to cases where there is a risk of absconding of an individual who poses a concrete, imminent, evidence-based and serious security threat. Such a determination should be based on an individual assessment of the specific circumstances of the case, using objective criteria established in national law, and never presumed solely on the basis of past conduct

Or. en

Amendment 461

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 462

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 463

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(35) The grounds for detention set out in this Regulation are without prejudice to other grounds for detention within the framework of criminal proceedings, which are applicable under national law and unrelated to the third-country national’s irregular presence on the territory of a Member State.

Or. en

Justification

Alignment with the language of amendments throughout the text.

Amendment 464

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(35) The grounds for detention set out in this Regulation are without prejudice to other grounds for detention, including detention grounds within the framework of criminal proceedings, which are applicable under national law and related or unrelated to the third-country national’s illegal stay.

Or. fr

Amendment 465

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Justification

There is no corresponding article in the operative part of the text. This recital reads like a message to third countries. This cannot be the purpose of an internal regulation of Union law.

Amendment 466

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Replaced so that it aligns with the Return Cooperation Mechanism

Amendment 467

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(36) The obligation of any State to readmit its own nationals represents a fundamental principle of state sovereignty and international cooperation. The duty of States to readmit their own nationals is considered a principle of customary international law and as foreseen by the ICAO convention, Annex IX, Chapter 5, and set out in the Samoa Agreement. Effective returns are only possible if States comply with the obligation to readmit their own nationals. Therefore, Member States depend on the cooperation of third countries to be able to implement effective returns. Existing instruments such as Article 25a of Regulation (EU) 810/2009 and Frontex support are used by the EU and Member States to improve cooperation with third countries where necessary.

Or. en

Amendment 468

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(36) The obligation of any State to readmit its own nationals represents a fundamental principle of state sovereignty and international cooperation. The duty of States to readmit their own nationals is considered a principle of customary international law. The existence of such a duty is further evidenced by the consistent practice of States in implementing readmission agreements and arrangements, combined with their recognition of this principle as a necessary aspect of international cooperation in managing migration. Any State that fails to comply with this readmission obligation may therefore be subject to retaliatory measures by the European Union and its Member States.

Or. fr

Amendment 469

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(36) The duty of States to readmit their own nationals is a principle of customary international law and international human rights law. The existence of such a duty is reflected by the consistent practice of States in implementing readmission agreements and arrangements, combined with their recognition of this principle as a necessary aspect of international cooperation.

Or. en

Amendment 470

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(36) The duty of States to readmit their own nationals is considered a principle of customary international law. However, cooperation on the readmission of third-country nationals should not be made a condition for the EU's support provided under other external policy areas, including foreign, visa, development or trade policy, nor should it entail exerting pressure on third-country governments to accept persons who are not their own nationals.

Or. en

Amendment 471

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 37

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(37) A systematic and coordinated approach to readmission among Member States is crucial to facilitate the return of third-country nationals. Insufficient follow up to enforceable return decisions risks hampering the efficiency of the common approach to returns. Enforceable return decisions should be systematically followed by all necessary measures to implement the return, including the submission of readmission requests to third countries’ authorities, in cases where nationality is in doubt or a travel document needs to be obtained.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 472

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 37

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 473

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 37

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 474

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 37

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(37) A more coordinated approach to readmission by the Member States may facilitate the return of third-country nationals. Insufficient follow up on enforceable return decisions risks hampering the efficiency of the common approach to returns. Where an accepted return is not possible, enforceable return decisions should be followed by all necessary measures to implement the return, including the submission of readmission requests to third countries’ authorities, in cases where nationality is in doubt or a travel document needs to be obtained.

Or. en

Justification

In line with amendments tabled to Article 36

Amendment 475

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 37

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(37) A coordinated approach to readmission among Member States is crucial to facilitate the return of third-country nationals. Insufficient follow up to enforceable return decisions risks hampering the efficiency of the common approach to returns. Enforceable return decisions should be systematically followed by all necessary measures to implement the return, including, where applicable, the submission of readmission requests to third countries’ authorities, in cases where nationality is in doubt or a travel document needs to be obtained.

Or. en

Amendment 476

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(38) Transparency on engagement with third countries, including in the context of negotiating readmission instruments, should be ensured.

Or. en

Amendment 477

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(38) While readmission also depends on the cooperation of third countries, a coherent approach should be taken among Member States to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of readmission procedures, and to ensure unity among Member States. Transparency and coordination on engagement with third countries, including in the context of negotiating readmission instruments, should be ensured to strengthen a coherent Union approach. With that in mind, measures taken at EU level, such as coordinated diplomatic retaliatory measures, visa restrictions or economic sanctions, would be more effective than isolated initiatives by Member States, given that a national refused a visa by one Member State can still obtain a visa in another and thus enjoy free movement within the Schengen area. To ensure effective returns, communication with relevant third country entities for the purpose of the readmission procedure should not amount to diplomatic recognition of the third-country entities concerned.

Or. fr

Amendment 478

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 479

Murielle Laurent

on behalf of the S&D Group

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Aligned with the deletion of Article 37.

Amendment 480

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 39

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(39) Effective return procedures rely on efficient administrative cooperation and information sharing between Member States. The exchange of information including the sharing of data on the identity and nationality of the third-country nationals, their travel documents and other relevant information should be based on clear rules, including those set out in Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 of the European Parliament and of the Council13 . These rules should respect the principles of data protection and the rights of the individual concerned, ensuring that such information is accurate and is only used for the purposes of return, readmission, and reintegration, and is protected against unauthorised access, disclosure, or use.

(39) The exchange of information including the sharing of data on the identity and nationality of the third-country nationals, their travel documents and other relevant information should be based on clear rules, including those set out in Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 of the European Parliament and of the Council13 . These rules should respect the principles of data protection and the rights of the individual concerned, ensuring that such information is accurate and is only used for the purposes of return, readmission, and reintegration, and is protected against unauthorised access, disclosure, or use.

_________________

13 Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ L 312, 7.12.2018, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1860/oj).

Or. en