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 826

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9. The enforcing Member State may ask Frontex to support the enforcement of the return decision in accordance with Chapter II, Section 8, of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. When the enforcement of the return decision is not supported by Frontex, and upon request of the enforcing Member State, the issuing Member State shall compensate the enforcing Member State with an amount that shall not exceed the actual costs incurred by the enforcing Member State. The Commission shall adopt an implementing decision to determine the appropriate criteria for determining the amount and practical arrangements for the compensation. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 49(2).

Or. en

Amendment 827

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

Article 9 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9. The enforcing Member State may ask Frontex to support the enforcement of the return decision in accordance with Chapter II, Section 8, of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. When the enforcement of the return decision is not supported by Frontex, and upon request of the enforcing Member State, the issuing Member State shall compensate the enforcing Member State with an amount that shall not exceed the actual costs incurred by the enforcing Member State. Depending on the individual circumstances and in accordance with national law, the third-country national concerned may be required to bear part or all of the costs related to the enforcement of the return decision. The Commission shall adopt an implementing decision to determine the appropriate criteria for determining the amount and practical arrangements for the compensation. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 49(2).

Or. en

Amendment 828

Karlo Ressler

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9. The enforcing Member State may ask Frontex to support the enforcement of the return decision in accordance with Chapter II, Section 8, of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. When the enforcement of the return decision is not supported by Frontex, and upon request of the enforcing Member State, the issuing Member State shall compensate the enforcing Member State with an amount when it is established that the Member State which issued the return decision has systematically or deliberately misused the return mechanism, resulting in an unjustified and disproportionate financial burden on another Member State. The Commission shall adopt an implementing decision to determine the appropriate criteria for determining the amount and practical arrangements for the compensation. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 49(2).

Or. hr

Amendment 829

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9 a. Three years after the publication pursuant to paragraph 3, the Commission shall review the effectiveness of this Article and shall, where appropriate, propose any targeted amendments. to ensure effective returns

Or. en

Amendment 830

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9 a. Six years after the publication pursuant to paragraph 3, the Commission shall review the effectiveness of this Article and shall, where appropriate, propose any targeted amendments to ensure effective returns.

Or. en

Amendment 831

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

10. The Commission decision referred to in paragraph 2 shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

This deletion is for consistency with the changes made to paragraph 2.

Amendment 832

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

10. The Commission decision referred to in paragraph 2 shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

10. The Council decision referred to in paragraph 2 shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Or. en

Amendment 833

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 9a

Compensation mechanism

1. The costs incurred by Member States in relation to the return, removal and detention of illegally staying third-country nationals shall be compensated through a dedicated Union funding mechanism.

2. Member States may apply for compensation for:

(a) the costs related to the return or removal of an illegally present third-country national, including but not limited to travel and transport costs, security costs and administrative costs;

(b) the costs related to the detention of an illegally present third-country national, including but not limited to accommodation and basic living costs, security and supervision costs, healthcare costs, personnel costs, operational costs, administrative costs and legal costs;

(c) the costs related to the accommodation of an illegally present third-country national, including but not limited to accommodation and facility costs, personnel costs, basic needs, healthcare costs and security costs;

(d) the costs related to the implementation of agreements with third countries in accordance with Article 17;

(e) any other relevant and duly justified costs directly linked to the implementation of this Regulation.

3. The Union budget allocated for this purpose shall ensure sufficient and predictable financing to support an effective return system.

Or. en

Justification

The current migration crisis has arisen primarily from the EU’s failure to manage migration effectively. It is therefore reasonable that the EU should shoulder greater responsibility for the consequences faced by Member States. To this end, the establishment of a compensation fund is proposed, designed to support Member States in covering the costs associated with illegal migration. Financing for such a fund should not be a justification for the Union to increase it's overall budget. The financing of for this fund should primarily be funded by reallocating EU aid to third countries that do not cooperate with readmission. Other suitable financing would include budget transfers from less important priorities of the Union, such as climate and green funds, administration and communication.

Amendment 834

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article9a

Procedural safeguards

1. Where the issuing Member State accepts the take back notification, the enforcing Member State shall, in writing, take a decision to transfer the third-country national concerned to the issuing Member State.

2. The transfer decision shall include information on the time limits for carrying out the transfer, and the obligation to comply with the decision. It shall be notified to the third-country national. The notification of these elements may be provided in a standardised format and may be machine translated, provided it is in a language the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand.

Or. en

Amendment 835

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article9b

Detention for the purpose of transfer

1. Member States may detain a third-country national in order to secure a transfer procedure pursuant to this Chapter.

2. Detention for the purpose of transfer shall be for as short a period as possible and for no longer than the time reasonably necessary to complete the administrative procedures with due diligence until the transfer is carried out. The conditions of detention set out in Articles 34 and 35 shall apply.

Or. en

Amendment 836

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 10

deleted

Issuance of an entry ban

1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban when:

a. the third-country national is subject to removal in accordance with Article 12;

b. the obligation to return has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 13;

c. the third-country national poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16.

2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, competent authorities shall determine whether or not a return decision shall be accompanied by an entry ban taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national.

4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and in compliance with the principle of proportionality and the rights of defence, and avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned.

5. Competent authorities may refrain from issuing an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons or if the third-country national duly cooperates with the competent authorities, included by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme.

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years.

7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of a maximum of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States.

8. The period of the entry ban shall start from the date on which the third-country national left the territory of the Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 837

Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban when:

1. In accordance to the principle of necessity and proportionality, return decisions may be accompanied by an entry ban when:

Or. en

Amendment 838

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban when:

1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban with a minimal duration of 10 years when:

Or. en

Amendment 839

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban when:

1. Return decisions may only be accompanied by an entry ban when:

Or. en

Amendment 840

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban when:

1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban.

Or. en

Justification

Entry bans should act as both a deterrent to illegal migration and also as a suitable punishment for illegally present third-country nationals. Therefore they must be applied to all return decisions.

Amendment 841

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the third-country national is subject to removal in accordance with Article 12;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 842

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the third-country national is subject to removal in accordance with Article 12;

deleted

Or. en

Justification

As the use of forced returns is enhanced in this draft Regulation, linking a forced return with an automatic entry ban is unfair and disproportionate.

Amendment 843

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the third-country national is subject to removal in accordance with Article 12;

a. the third-country national is subject to removal ;

Or. en

Amendment 844

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. the obligation to return has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 13;

deleted

Or. en

Justification

As an obligation to return to one’s country of origin is not always dependent solely on the returnee, it would be unfair and disproportionate to impose an entry ban on those who cannot return because their country of origin will not accept them.

Amendment 845

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. the obligation to return has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 13;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 846

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. the obligation to return has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 13;

b. the obligation to return has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 13 where this is within the third-country national’s control;

Or. en

Amendment 847

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. the obligation to return has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 13;

b. the obligation to leave the territory of the Member States has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 7, paragraphs 1a-1c;

Or. en

Amendment 848

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b a. there are other grounds indicated in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 849

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. the third-country national poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 850

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. the third-country national poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16.

c. the third-country national poses a present and genuine threat to internal security. The security threat assessment cannot be based exclusively on the existence of a "security flag" in the Eurodac database pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1358.

Or. en

Amendment 851

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. the third-country national poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16.

c. the third-country national poses a threat to public policy, internal security or international relations in accordance with Article 16.

Or. en

Justification

See language of Article 6(2)(e) of the Schengen Borders Code - on the grounds to refuse entry to third-country nationals.

Amendment 852

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

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. the third-country national has been convicted for any offence punishable by a term of imprisonment.

Or. en

Amendment 853

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. the third-country national fails to cooperate with the obligations as set out in Article 21.

Or. en

Amendment 854

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. there are other grounds indicated in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 855

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 a. Return decisions shall be accompanied by a life-long entry ban in cases where the third-country national poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16.

Or. en

Amendment 856

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. In cases involving minors, return decisions shall not be accompanied by an entry ban.

Or. en

Amendment 857

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, the return decision shall be accompanied by an entry ban with a minimum duration of 5 years.

Or. en

Amendment 858

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Competent authorities shall determine the specific duration of the entry ban, taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 859

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Beyond the case referred to in paragraph 1,competent authorities may decide that a return decision shall be accompanied by an entry ban taking into account the individual circumstances of the case and the returnee, including whether the returnee deliberately obstructed the return process.

Or. en

Justification

If a returnee deliberately obstructs the return process, then this is a factor to consider when deciding whether to impose an entry ban. Level of cooperation is much too vague.

Amendment 860

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, competent authorities shall determine whether or not a return decision or a removal order shall be accompanied by an entry ban taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 861

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, competent authorities may accompany a return decision or decision ordering the removal order with an entry ban taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 862

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. For this purpose, competent authorities may rely on standardised translation templates or machine-assisted translation tools, where appropriate.

Or. en

Amendment 863

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or as part of the decision ordering the removal or separately in writing. The entry ban shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. Information of the effects of an entry ban may be notified in a generalised information sheet.

Or. en

Amendment 864

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national. The notification may be provided in a standardised format and may be machine translated, provided it is in a language the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand.

Or. en

Amendment 865

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The entry ban shall be issued in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or is reasonably supposed to understand.

Or. en

Justification

It's important to be clear when an entry ban could be issued. This decision should be in writing, in a language the TCN understands, see Article 8(2) APR.

Amendment 866

Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands

Or. en

Amendment 867

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands.

Or. en

Amendment 868

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand.

Or. en

Amendment 869

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Justification

This provision is without justification. Entry bans should accompany a written return decision and not exist in a legal vacuum. Voluntary departure should always be prioritised but not with the imposition of an entry ban where there is no return decision. It also not clear that the legal basis covers entry bans not linked to repatriation or removal.

Amendment 870

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 871

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 872

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 and avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 873

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

Article 10 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, and avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 874

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399. The entry ban in these cases may be imposed and notified after the third-country national has departed from the territory of the Member States avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 875

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4 a. Where an illegally staying third-country national departs from the territory of the Member States before a return decision is issued, the competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing such a return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 876

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 4 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4 b. Taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, Member States may impose an entry ban after the third-country national has departed from the territory.

Or. en

Amendment 877

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 4 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4 b. Where the grounds for issuing an entry ban have arisen after a return decision is issued, the competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a new return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 878

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 879

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 880

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Competent authorities may refrain from issuing an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons, if the third-country national is a victim of human trafficking, or if the third-country national duly cooperates with the competent authorities, including by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme.

Or. en

Amendment 881

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Competent authorities may refrain from issuing an entry ban if the third-country national duly cooperates with the competent authorities, included by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme.

Or. fr

Amendment 882

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Competent authorities shall not issue an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons, in cases involving minors or if the third-country national is participating in a return and reintegration programme.

Or. en

Amendment 883

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Competent authorities may, in accordance with national law, refrain from issuing an entry ban or issue an entry ban with a lower minimal duration in exceptional cases and in duly justified circumstances, in particular for humanitarian reasons.

Or. en

Amendment 884

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Competent authorities may decide not to issue an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons or if the returnee duly cooperates with the return authorities, included by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme.

Or. en

Amendment 885

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5 a. Member States may provide in their national law for the possibility to reduce the duration of an entry ban by a maximum of half its initial duration, where the third-country national has voluntarily and fully complied with the return decision within the departure period specified therein.

Or. en

Amendment 886

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 887

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years.

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of ten years. In doing so, competent authorities may consider the nature and seriousness of the conduct leading to the illegal stay or to previous enforcement measures, including cases in which the third-country national departed voluntarily after an unlawful stay exceeding 180 days but below one year, for which an entry ban of up to three years may be appropriate. Without prejudice to Article 16(3)(a), an entry ban may, based on an individual assessment and duly substantiated reasons, be issued for a maximum of twenty years where such duration is necessary further to prevent re-entry into the territory of the Member States. In cases involving conduct that constitutes a severe, demonstrable and continuing threat to public security or national security, competent authorities may, on the basis of a proportionate assessment of the risk posed, impose an entry ban of up to twenty years or, in exceptional and duly justified circumstances relating to the gravity and persistence of that threat, an entry ban of indefinite duration.

Or. en

Amendment 888

Rasa Juknevičienė

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years.

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. Without prejudice to Article 16(3)(a), an entry ban may be issued for a maximum of 20 years with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of the competent authorities for why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States.

Or. en

Justification

This amendment aims to ensure that Member States have the ability to issue an entry ban of an indefinite duration in cases where a third-country national poses a serious and persistent security threat. While Articles 10(6) and 16(3) limit the maximum duration of an entry ban, certain cases involving high-risk individuals require a more robust and long-term preventive response.Allowing an entry ban without a fixed end date—where duly justified and proportionate—provides Member States with the necessary flexibility to address situations in which the security risk is not likely to diminish within a predictable timeframe.The possibility to impose an indefinite entry ban remains strictly conditional on an individualised assessment, respect for fundamental rights and safeguards, and periodic review under national law to ensure that the measure does not persist longer than the underlying threat. This approach strengthens the protection of internal security while maintaining full compliance with the principles of necessity and proportionality.

Amendment 889

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years.

6. Without prejudice to Article 16(3)(a), the length of the entry ban shall be determined for a maximum of 40 years.

Member States are encouraged to implement in national law minimum entry bans that correlate to the threat of individual, in particular:

Or. en

Amendment 890

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years.

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined for 10 years. In justified cases, taking into account security of the Member State, an entry ban may be imposed for longer period, as determined in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 891

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years.

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a minimum of 7 years to a maximum of lifetime duration.

Or. en

Amendment 892

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years.

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case up to an initial maximum of 5 years.

Or. en

Justification

The maximum duration in paragraph 6 is an initial maximum. 10 years is clearly disproportionate.

Amendment 893

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years.

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case and may apply for life.

Or. fr

Amendment 894

Milan Uhrík

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years.

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a minimum of 20 years.

Or. en

Amendment 895

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years.

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 5 years.

Or. en

Amendment 896

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

Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years.

6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case.

Or. en

Amendment 897

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the third-country national has not complied with the obligation to return within the time limits determined pursuant to Article 12, Member States are may determine an entry ban of at least five years;

(b) the third-country national is subject to removal under Article 13, Member States may determine an entry ban for a of at least of 20 years;

(c) the third-country national poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16, Member States may determine an entry ban of at least 40 years;

(d) the third-country national falls within the scope of Directive 2017/541 of the European Parliament or of the Council or has committed war crimes as defined in Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998, Member States may determine an entry ban of at least 80 years;

(e) points (a) through (d) do not prevent Member States from issuing an indefinete entry ban in any category in order to protet public policy, public security or national security.

Or. en

Amendment 898

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6 a. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, third-country nationals who pose a security risk in accordance with Article 16 shall be issued with a lifetime entry ban.

Or. en

Amendment 899

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

Article 10 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 900

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of a maximum of 5 years up to an overall maximum of 15 years. Such extension shall by written decision amenable to judicial review be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. Such an extension shall be notified to the third-country national in accordance with paragraph 2.

Or. en

Justification

As the initial entry ban will be linked to a return decision, the right to an effective remedy can be sought against the return decision. Where an entry ban is extended, the link with the return decision is broken and a fresh written decision is required.

Amendment 901

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. The duration of the entry ban may be extended to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 902

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by a period of up to five years if the third-country national represents a serious genuine and present threat to internal security. Such extension and its duration shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 903

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 1 and 2 may be extended by successive periods of a maximum of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 904

Milan Uhrík

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of a minimum of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 905

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of national authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States.

Or. fr

Amendment 906

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

Article 10 – paragraph 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7 a. Member States may impose a permanent entry ban on persons falling within the scope of Article 16(1), where this is justified and proportionate in view of the security risk posed by the third-country national

Or. en

Amendment 907

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8. The period of the entry ban shall start from the date on which the third-country national left the territory of the Member States.

8. The period of the entry ban shall start from the date on which the third-country national leaves the territory of the Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 908

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8. The period of the entry ban shall start from the date on which the third-country national left the territory of the Member States.

8. The period of the entry ban shall start from the date on which the returnee left the territory of the Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 909

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 11

deleted

Withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban

1. An entry ban may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened where the third-country national:

a. demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision;

b. has not already been the subject of a return decision or removal order in the past;

c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force.

2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban.

Or. en

Justification

This is now addressed in article 10.

Amendment 910

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban

Withdrawal or shortening of the duration of an entry ban

Or. en

Amendment 911

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. An entry ban may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened where the third-country national:

1. A Member State may withdraw, suspend or shorten the duration of an entry ban at any time based on an individual assessment of the situation of the third-country national. That asssessment should take into account the following:

Or. en

Amendment 912

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. An entry ban may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened where the third-country national:

1. An entry ban may be withdrawn or its duration shortened by the issuing Member State only in cases where the third-country national demonstrates that he or she returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 913

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. An entry ban may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened where the third-country national:

1. An entry ban may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened by the issuing Member State where the third-country national demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 914

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. An entry ban may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened where the third-country national:

1. An entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10(1)(a) or (b) shall be withdrawn where the third-country national demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 915

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 916

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 917

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 918

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision;

a. whether he or she has accepted the obligation to leave and has left in compliance with a return decision;

Or. en

Justification

Accepted return rather than voluntary return. The decision to leave is not voluntary - it is compliance with an obligation.

Amendment 919

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. has not already been the subject of a return decision or removal order in the past;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 920

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. has not already been the subject of a return decision or removal order in the past;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 921

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Rasa Juknevičienė

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. has not already been the subject of a return decision or removal order in the past;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 922

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. has not already been the subject of a return decision or removal order in the past;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 923

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. has not already been the subject of a return decision or removal order in the past;

b. whether he or she has already been the subject of a return decision order in the past;

Or. en

Justification

The removal order is an extension of the return decision. Including both here is confusing, as if a returnee might have a removal order without a return decision.

Amendment 924

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

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b a. takes in charge the payment of return costs.

Or. en

Amendment 925

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 926

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 927

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 928

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 929

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 930

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force.

c. whether he or she has entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban, of which he or she was aware, was still in force.

Or. en

Justification

If the person was not aware that an entry ban was in place, this cannot be held against her.

Amendment 931

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons justifying a withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the entry ban.

Or. en

Justification

All the elements that might impact on a decision to withdraw, suspend or shorten an entry ban should be taken into account in order for Member States’ authorities to take proportionate decisions in relation to entry bans

Amendment 932

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 933

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Rasa Juknevičienė

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 934

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

2. Where an entry ban is withdrawn or suspended , in accordance with paragraph 1, that Member State shall ensure that the associated alert in the Schengen Information System is deleted immediately pursuant to Article 40 of Regulation 2018/1861.

Or. en

Justification

With the increased prevalence of entry bans, it is essential to ensure that SIS alerts on entry bans are removed as soon as an entry ban is suspended or withdrawn.

Amendment 935

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

2. The competent authority may at their discretion withdraw, suspend or shorten the duration of an entry ban in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

Or. en

Amendment 936

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

2. An entry ban shall also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened where necessary in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

Or. en

Amendment 937

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

2. An entry ban, on well-grounded request of the third-country national, may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases.

Or. en

Amendment 938

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn or its duration shortened in duly justified and exceptional individual cases, with the exception of third-country nationals listed in paragraph 2a.

Or. en

Amendment 939

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2 a. An entry ban shall not be withdrawn or its duration shortened where the third-country national:

a. was subject to a lifetime entry ban in accordance with Article 10(6);

b. poses, or is believed to reasonably pose, a threat to national security or public security;

Or. en

Amendment 940

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2 a. Third-country nationals falling under the scope of Article 16, paragraph 1, shall not benefit from the withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban.

Or. en

Amendment 941

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 942

Rasa Juknevičienė

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban.

3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban. A third-country national who has been issued an entry ban exceeding 10 years pursuant to Article 10(6) or Article 16(3)(a) may, five years after his or her departure from the Member States, request the issuing Member State to review whether the entry ban should be withdrawn, suspended or shortened, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including, where applicable, whether the person continues to pose a security risk under Article 16 and whether the measure remains necessary to prevent entry into the territory of the Member States. Any such request shall be well-grounded.

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 943

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban.

3. The third-country national may submit a well-grounded request for withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban, provided that the third-country national has complied with the return decision, without prejudice to paragraph 4, and the third-country national, was issued an entry ban that exceeds 10 years in accordance with Article 10(6) or Article 16(3)(a). The decision shall have due regard to all relevant circumstances, including, where relevant, whether the third-country national was a security risk under Article 16, and whether the entry ban remains necessary to further prevent that third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 944

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban.

3. The third-country national may submit a well-substantiated request in writing in the language of the issuing Member State for the withdrawal or shortening of the duration of an entry ban. Third-country nationals may be entitled, on a single occasion only, to request the withdrawal of an entry ban or the shortening of its duration. Subsequent requests for the same purpose shall be inadmissible.

Or. en

Amendment 945

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban.

3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban, including after leaving the territory of the issuing Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 946

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban.

3. The third-country national may be afforded the possibility to request such shortening of the duration of an entry ban.

Or. fr

Amendment 947

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. Member States may subject the withdrawal of an entry ban to:

i) the reimbursement of the costs of the removal of the third-country national

ii) a requirement to apply for a visa, especially in cases where the third-country previously benefited from visa free access, which is granted conditionally on the advance payment of a visa bond which is at least equivalent to the previous cost of the third-country national's removal. The conditions for payment, holding, forfeiture and refund of the bond shall be determined under national law. Any subsequent violation of national or immigration rules, including illegal entry, overstaying, or criminal conduct, shall result in the automatic forfeiture of the bond.

Or. en

Amendment 948

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. The procedure for the withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban shall be set out in national law and include an accessible procedure for third-country nationals who have already left the territory of the EU. This procedure shall be communicated to the third-country national in writing, in simple and accessible language and in a language which the third-country national understands, including through written or oral translation and interpretation as necessary.

Or. en

Amendment 949

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. Member States shall lay down in national law the procedure for the withdrawal, suspension, or shortening the duration of an entry ban. The procedure shall be open to third-country nationals who have already left the territory of the Union.

Or. en

Justification

To allow third-country nationals to understand rules regarding entry bans and the shortening, suspension or withdrawal of such bans, it is necessary to have a procedure at national level.

Amendment 950

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. The procedure for the withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban shall be set out in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 951

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Chapter II – Section 4 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4 Enforcement of return

4 Voluntary return and fundamental rights monitoring

Or. en

Amendment 952

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 12

deleted

Removal

1. The third-country national subject to a return decision shall be removed when:

a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process;

b. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13;

c. the third-country national falls within the scope of Article 16;

d. the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13.

2. Member States' competent authorities may issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal.

4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law respecting fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned.

5. In carrying out removals by air, Member States shall take into account the common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2004/573/EC26 .

6. In duly justified cases and when the third-country national is clearly cooperating, competent authorities may decide to indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States in accordance with Article 13. In such cases, competent authorities shall closely monitor the compliance of the third-country national, including by organising transport assistance to the relevant point of departure from the Union.

_________________

26 Council Decision 2004/573/EC of 29 April 2004 on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of two or more Member States, of third-country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 28, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2004/573/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 953

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 12

deleted

Removal

1. The third-country national subject to a return decision shall be removed when:

a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process;

b. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13;

c. the third-country national falls within the scope of Article 16;

d. the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13.

2. Member States' competent authorities may issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 954

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 12

deleted

Removal

1. The third-country national subject to a return decision shall be removed when:

a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process;

b. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13;

c. the third-country national falls within the scope of Article 16;

d. the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13.

2. Member States' competent authorities may issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal.

_________________

Or. en

Justification

Retabled as article 13a.

Amendment 955

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph -1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

-1. This Article shall apply where a third-country national has not complied with the obligation to return within the period for voluntary departure set out in the return decision pursuant to Article 7, or where that decision imposes an obligation to return immediately.

Or. en

Justification

To ensure legal certainty and reduce administrative burdens, we propose the following structure.

- Compliance: An individual who adheres to the obligation to leave fulfills the terms of the return decision (art 7).

- Non-compliance: An individual who does not depart becomes, by that fact alone, subject to removal (art 12). This status directly enables the application of detention or an alternative measure.

- Overriding Principle: Notwithstanding the application of such measures, the individual is not precluded from complying with the return decision at any time.

Amendment 956

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The third-country national subject to a return decision shall be removed when:

deleted

a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process;

b. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13;

c. the third-country national falls within the scope of Article 16;

d. the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13.

Or. en

Amendment 957

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Irena Joveva

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 958

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Rasa Juknevičienė

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process;

a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities, in accordance with the obligations laid down in Article 21, during the return process;

Or. en

Amendment 959

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process;

a. the third-country national has not complied with the obligation to leave the territory in accordance with Article 7;

Or. en

Amendment 960

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process;

a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities;

Or. en

Amendment 961

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a a. the third-country national does not cooperate with the authorities;

Or. en

Amendment 962

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 963

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13;

b. the third-country national departs from the territory of the Member State and enters into another Member State, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13;

Or. en

Amendment 964

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13.

d. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 7;

Or. en

Amendment 965

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

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d a. where the competent authorities consider the removal necessary and proportionate, in accordance with national law, for reasons other than those listed in points (a) to (d).

Or. en

Amendment 966

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d a. the third-country national has provided false, misleading or intentionally misrepresented his or her age to the competent authorities;

Or. en

Amendment 967

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d a. national law provides grounds to remove the third-country national for other reasons than subparagraph (a) to (d).

Or. en

Amendment 968

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d a. e. there are other grounds in national law

Or. en

Amendment 969

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d b. the third-country national has not complied with the obligation to return within the period for voluntary departure set out in the return decision;

Or. en

Amendment 970

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d b. the Member State deems it necessary, as provided for in national law, to remove the third-country national for other reasons than (a) to (d).

Or. en

Amendment 971

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d c. Where a country of return has not previously been determined, the Member State shall determine one or more countries of return as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 3, prior to carrying out the removal.

Or. en

Amendment 972

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d c. the Member State finds it necessary, as provided for in national law, to remove the third-country national for reasons other than those listed in subparagraph (a) to (f).

Or. en

Amendment 973

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 a. The third-country national subject to a return decision may be removed when:

(a) the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process;

Or. en

Amendment 974

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Member States' competent authorities may issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal.

2. A removal order shall be issued by the competent authorities to any third-country national who is subject to removal. The removal order shall be issued in writing in the same decision as the return decision or as a separate administrative or judicial decision.

Or. en

Amendment 975

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Member States' competent authorities may issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal.

2. Member States' competent authorities may issue a decision on removal together with a return decision in a single administrative or judicial decision or act or in a separate administrative or judicial act.

Or. en

Amendment 976

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2 a. Where a competent authority issues a decision ordering the removal, and where the country of return has not previously been determined, the decision ordering the removal shall state one or more countries of return as referred to in Article 4(3).

Or. en

Amendment 977

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2 b. Where a decision ordering the removal is issued, it shall give reasons in fact and in law. The decision ordering the removal shall be notified to the third-country national as soon as possible in accordance with national law of the Member State concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 978

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2 c. Where a decision ordering the removal is issued, the third-country national shall, upon request, be provided with a written or oral translation of the main elements of the decision ordering the removal, in a language the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. Member States may use generalised information sheets or translations, including machine-generated translations.

Or. en

Amendment 979

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 980

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 981

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. When the third country national indicates, or the authorities of the Member State become aware of, relevant indications that the removal would breach the principle of non-refoulement, the Member State shall refer the third-country national 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 otherwise consider whether the removal is in compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant information concerning their own personal circumstances in order to substantiate their claim that the removal would breach the principle of non-refoulement. Member States may rely on or take into consideration any previous assessment of the risk of non-refoulement. A new assessment consideration of the risk of refoulement shall only be made if new, relevant information has been substantiated.

Or. en

Amendment 982

Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The competent authorities shall comply with the principle of non-refoulement when removing third-country nationals. If a third-country national or the authorities of a Member State indicate that the removal would breach the principle of non-refoulement, the Member State shall refer the third-country national concerned to the appropriate asylum procedure provided under the APR or national law, or otherwise consider whether removal is in compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. Member States may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the return procedure, and, where relevant, asylum procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances.

Or. en

Amendment 983

Irena Joveva

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return. They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. Removal shall not be carried out if the individual assessment reveals that the third-country national is a vulnerable person whose physical or mental health would be seriously endangered or the principle of non-refoulement would be breached by the enforcement of the removal.

Or. en

Amendment 984

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances, proving a risk of non-refoulement.

Or. en

Amendment 985

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. When the competent authorities have to assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return in accordance with paragraph 3b, they may rely on an existing assessment of all relevant circumstances. Relevant changes in circumstances and new elements put forward by the third country national evidencing a risk shall, when applicable be examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. Member States may dismiss elements concerning the personal circumstances of the third country national on the basis of the fact that they could have been presented earlier.

Or. en

Amendment 986

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. Without prejudice to paragraph 3b, once a removal date has been set, Member States may, in accordance with national law, establish a deadline for the submission of new elements concerning the third-country national's personal circumstances.

Or. en

Amendment 987

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. Member States may decide that the principle of non-refoulement may be assessed by an authority other than the competent authority that is issuing or enforcing the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 988

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 3 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 b. The obligation to assess the risk of a potential breach of the principle of non-refoulement under paragraph 3 shall be considered fulfilled where:

(a) a thorough examination of such risk was conducted in the context of a final decision in an asylum procedure; and

(b) the country to which the third-country national is to be returned is the same country that was the subject of that examination; and

(c) the competent authorities have verified that the general situation in the country of return has not substantially deteriorated since that final decision was taken.

Or. en

Amendment 989

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 990

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 991

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 992

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate, including with regard to the use of force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law respecting fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned.

Or. fr

Amendment 993

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 994

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 995

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. In duly justified cases and when the third-country national is clearly cooperating, national authorities may decide to indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States in accordance with Article 13, informing the third-country national that they will be subject to sanctions and forced removal in the event that they fail to comply with that deadline. In such cases, national authorities shall closely monitor the compliance of the third-country national, including by organising transport assistance to the relevant point of departure from the Union.

Or. fr

Amendment 996

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. In duly justified cases and when the third-country national is clearly cooperating, and excluding third-country nationals falling under Article 16, competent authorities may decide to indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States in accordance with Article 13. In such cases, competent authorities shall closely monitor the compliance of the third-country national, including by organising transport assistance to the relevant point of departure from the Union.

Or. en

Amendment 997

Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6 a. Removal orders shall not be executed for the duration of the appeal procedure to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) before a competent judicial authority as set out in Article 27

Or. en

Amendment 998

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6 a. Nothing in this Article shall prevent a third-country national from complying with the obligation to return at any point in time.

Or. en

Justification

This provision clarifies that, notwithstanding the initiation of removal procedures under this Article, the third-country national's underlying obligation to return remains. It ensures legal certainty by confirming that the individual retains the ability to comply voluntarily with the return decision at any stage, which is consistent with the principle of favoring voluntary compliance over coercive measures.

Amendment 999

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 6 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6 b. Where a third-country national is subject to removal, Member States may keep that person in detention or apply one or more of the measures provided for in Article 31.

Or. en

Amendment 1000

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 13

deleted

Voluntary return

3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national.

4. The third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States by the date determined pursuant to paragraph 1. If not, the third-country national shall be subject of removal in accordance with Article 12.

Or. en

Amendment 1001

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 13

deleted

Voluntary return

Or. en

Amendment 1002

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Voluntary return

Voluntary departure

Or. en

Amendment 1003

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Voluntary return

Voluntary departure

Or. en

Amendment 1004

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Voluntary return

Accepted return

Or. en

Amendment 1005

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

Article 13 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier. Voluntary departure is a binding obligation and any failure to comply shall result in the immediate initiation of forced removal procedures.

Or. en

Amendment 1006

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States, shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier and shall set out the consequences of failing to comply with the deadline for leaving the territory.

Or. fr

Amendment 1007

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall provide for the effective possibility for third country nationals who are staying irregularly to voluntarily leave the Member State and ensure that the return has been carried out voluntarily, including absence of any physical, psychological, or material pressure following an examination of the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 1008

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave at any time before that date

Or. en

Amendment 1009

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Except where a returnee is considered to pose a risk to internal security pursuant to Article 16, each return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national should leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier.

Or. en

Justification

Unless Article 16 is applied, each return decision should indicate a period for voluntary leave. The other conditions for the application of Article 12/13 depend on the behaviour of the returnee, which cannot be assessed at the moment of issuing the return decision.

Amendment 1010

Irena Joveva

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall state a departure period by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier.

Or. en

Amendment 1011

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The date referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision and may indicate that the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States immediately. The departure period may be further specified in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1012

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 14 days from the date of notification of the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 1013

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The date by which the third-country national may leave shall not be less than 6 months from the date of notification of the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 1014

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Justification

A reasonable minimum period during which the TCN can prepare for leaving the Union should be mandatory.

Amendment 1015

Irena Joveva

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The departure period referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The departure period by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 1016

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1017

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 1018

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1019

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Upon a duly substantiated request of the third country national, Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 1020

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States may extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall not exceed 30 days and shall be provided in writing to the third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 1021

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States may extend the departure period pursuant to with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case, in particular participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. Member states may shorten the departure period pursuant to paragraph 1a in case of noncompliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21.

Or. en

Amendment 1022

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 1023

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States shall provide for a longer period or extend the voluntary period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as social links, family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and any specific needs of vulnerable persons including the assessment of health and medical needs. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 1024

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as the length of stay, family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 1025

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States shall provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 where necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 1026

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. Where a third-country national poses a genuine and present threat to internal security, Member States may refrain from granting a period for voluntary departure.

Or. en

Amendment 1027

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1028

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1029

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The returnee shall leave the territory of the Member States by the date determined pursuant to paragraph 1 or paragraph 3. If the returnee has not left by the date determined under paragraph 1, 2 or 3, then the returnee may be subject to removal in accordance with Article 13a. The date determined pursuant to paragraph 1, 2 or 3 shall be without prejudice to the right of a Member State to carry out a forced return on third country nationals where the conditions laid down in Article 13a are met.

Or. en

Justification

Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are all relevant for setting the period for accepted return.

Amendment 1030

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1031

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4 a. Where there is a risk of absconding, or an application for legal stay has been dismissed as manifestly unfounded or fraudulent, or the person concerned poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16, Member States may refrain from granting a departure period and order immediate departure.

Or. en

Amendment 1032

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 4 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4 b. The departure period shall be counted from a date defined in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1033

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article13a

Removal

1. The returnee shall be removed when:

a. the third-country national has deliberately obstructed the competent authorities during the return procedure;

b. the third-country national has, on more than one occasion, moved to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13;

c. the third-country national falls within the scope of Article 16;

d. the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13 and not been granted additional time to leave in accordance with paragraph 3 of that Article.

2. Member States' competent authorities shall issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal.

3. The competent authorities shall, on the basis of an individual assessment, assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement both by reference to the country of transfer and the country of origin.

They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances 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.

Where a return decision has been issued following a finding of inadmissibility in respect of an application for international protection, the return authorities shall themselves assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall be entitled to bring forward any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances.

4. Coercive measures may only be taken to ensure removal as a matter of last resort. Where coercive measures are taken they shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with the Charter of fundamental rights, national law, and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned.

_________________

1a Council Decision 2004/573/EC of 29 April 2004 on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of two or more Member States, of third-country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 28, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2004/573/oj).

Or. en

Justification

Accepted return must be prioritised, as it is the most sustainable form of return. The law should not encourage/oblige authorities to enter into a forced return situation for the TCN’s perceived failure to cooperate. Failure to cooperate must be sustained before it should result in forced return. As the reasons why a TCN might try to move between MS can be varied, it is disproportionate to enter into a forced return situation for a single move to another MS by the returnee. In addition, if a returnee wants to accept the return decision, this should not be impeded by the rules. In order to harmonise the process of return and avoid any ambiguities in the process, all Member States should issue a removal order when a forced return is being carried out. Reliance on previous procedures can only be reasonable where the merits of any claim for asylum have been examined. Inadmissibility decisions, by their very nature, do not consider refoulement. The competent authorities should carry out an individual assessment in each case. The fact of being sanctioned under Article 22 does not automatically signify that the returnee will not accept the return decision, particularly in the light of the significant burden placed on returnees in terms of obligations. As the aim of the Regulation is to increase the level of returns, encouraging returnees to return should not be made harder

Amendment 1034

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 13a

Removal

1. The third-country national subject to a return decision may be removed when:

a) the third-country national poses a genuine and present threat to internal security;

b) the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13, for reasons not beyond his or her control.

2. Member States' competent authorities shall issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal.

3. Before issuing a removal order, the competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return, including any risk of onward refoulement. If a thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances has taken place in previous stages of the procedure, changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined.

4. Coercive measures may only be taken as a last resort to ensure removal. Such measures shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law respecting fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned. Member States shall not apply coercive measures to minors.

5. In carrying out removals by air, Member States shall take into account the common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2004/573/EC.

Or. en

Amendment 1035

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 14

deleted

Conditions for postponing removal

1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances:

a. when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement; or

b. when and for as long as suspension of the return decision in accordance with Article 28 is in place.

2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case.

3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated.

4. When taking a decision in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, Member States shall provide the third-country national concerned with a written confirmation setting out the period of postponement and their rights during that period.

5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months.

6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed:

a. basic needs;

b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory;

c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness;

d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay;

e. special needs of vulnerable persons.

7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Article 31 may be applied when the conditions are fulfilled.

Or. en

Amendment 1036

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 14

deleted

Conditions for postponing removal

1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances:

a. when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement; or

b. when and for as long as suspension of the return decision in accordance with Article 28 is in place.

2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case.

3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated.

5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months.

6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed:

a. basic needs;

b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory;

c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness;

d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay;

e. special needs of vulnerable persons.

7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Article 31 may be applied when the conditions are fulfilled.

Or. en

Justification

Deletion of Article 14 is crucial for swift, enforceable returns. Non-refoulement claims belong exclusively in the asylum procedure (APR), preventing duplication and abuse. This aligns with the principle that appeals lack automatic suspensive effect. The entitlements granted during postponement create a paradoxical legal status, potentially more favourable than that of citizens, undermining fairness. This deletion reinforces the principle that an illegal stay must be terminated and followed by effective return.

Amendment 1037

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Conditions for postponing removal

Conditions for postponing or suspending return

Or. en

Amendment 1038

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances:

1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed when it is proven that it would violate the principle of non-refoulement.

Or. en

Amendment 1039

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances:

1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed when it is proven that it would violate the principle of non-refoulement.

Or. en

Amendment 1040

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances:

1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed when it is established that the removal would effectively violate the principle of non-refoulement.

Or. en

Amendment 1041

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances:

1. Member States shall postpone or suspend return in particular in the following circumstances:

Or. en

Amendment 1042

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances:

1. Removal pursuant to Article 13a shall be postponed in the following circumstances:

Or. en

Amendment 1043

Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances:

1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be suspended in the following circumstances:

Or. en

Amendment 1044

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances:

1. Member States shall postpone removal in the following circumstances:

Or. en

Amendment 1045

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement; or

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1046

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement; or

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1047

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement; or

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1048

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. when and for as long as suspension of the return decision in accordance with Article 28 is in place.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1049

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. when and for as long as suspension of the return decision in accordance with Article 28 is in place.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1050

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. when and for as long as suspension of the return decision in accordance with Article 28 is in place.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1051

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b a. when it would violate the right to family life with family members present in the Member State's territory;

Or. en

Amendment 1052

Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b a. when the cases set out in Article 7, paragraph 9 apply

Or. en

Amendment 1053

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b b. when it would impact on the essential treatment of an illness;

Or. en

Amendment 1054

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b c. when it would end access of the children to the education system;

Or. en

Amendment 1055

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b d. when persons are identified as vulnerable;

Or. en

Amendment 1056

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b e. when return is not in the best interest of the child.

Or. en

Amendment 1057

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case.

deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 1058

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

Article 14 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case.

2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case and provided that there is no risk of absconding in accordance with Article 30.

Or. en

Amendment 1059

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case.

2. Member States shall postpone removal for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case. Member States shall in particular take into account:

Or. en

Amendment 1060

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case.

2. Removal pursuant to Article 13a may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, including :

Or. en

Justification

The elements listed in paragraph 6 of the proposal actually represent elements that should be taken into account in an initial assessment of whether a removal should be postponed.

Amendment 1061

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case.

2. Return shall be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case.

Or. en

Amendment 1062

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the third-country national’s physical state or mental capacity;

Or. en

Amendment 1063

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) basic needs;

Or. en

Amendment 1064

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) technical reasons, such as lack of transport capacity, or failure of the removal due to lack of identification.

Or. en

Amendment 1065

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) family unity with family members present in the Member State’s territory;

Or. en

Amendment 1066

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1067

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) access of minor children to the education system subject to the length of their stay;

Or. en

Amendment 1068

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e) special needs of vulnerable persons.

Or. en

Amendment 1069

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1070

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated.

3. If the third-country national requests postponement of return for justified reasons, the request shall be duly examined by the Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 1071

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

Article 14 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated.

3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated and submitted without undue delay.

Or. en

Amendment 1072

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated.

3. A returnee shall be entitled to request postponement of removal. Such a request shall be duly substantiated.

Or. en

Amendment 1073

François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Rasa Juknevičienė

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1074

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1075

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Member States shall provide the third-country national concerned with a written confirmation setting out the period of postponement including their rights and obligation during that period in accordance with paragraph 1. A translation of the confirmation may be communicated orally to the third-country national in a language they understand or are reasonably presumed to understand, including with the use of interpretation services.

Or. en

Amendment 1076

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Member States shall provide the third-country national concerned with a written confirmation of the postponement in accordance with paragraph 1. A translation of the confirmation may be communicated orally to the third-country national in a language they understand or are reasonably presumed to understand, including with the use of interpretation services.

Or. en

Amendment 1077

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1078

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1079

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months.

5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. When reviewing the decision to postpone removal and where removal will be postponed beyond 6 months, the Member State shall review the return decision in accordance with Article 7(9). For any subsequent postponement of removal, the Member State shall also be required to undertake such a review.

Or. en

Justification

As a return becomes less likely the longer the process takes, it is imperative that MS reconsider their options, when a removal is postponed beyond 6 months.

Amendment 1080

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months.

5. The decision to suspend or postpone return in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. Each review shall examine the possibility to grant an authorisation to stay in accordance with Article 7(9). After two reviews, if there has been no change in circumstances, the competent authority shall grant a residence permit.

Or. en

Amendment 1081

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months.

5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. Each review shall include an assessment of alternative options in accordance with Article 7(9). After 12 months, Member States shall withdraw the return decision and apply the procedure in Article 7(1a) new.

Or. en

Amendment 1082

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months.

5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be reviewed in case of substantial change of relevant circumstances.

Or. en

Amendment 1083

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months.

5. The postponement of the removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be reviewed in case of change of relevant circumstances.

Or. en

Amendment 1084

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed:

deleted

a. basic needs;

b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory;

c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness;

d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay;

e. special needs of vulnerable persons.

Or. fr

Amendment 1085

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed:

deleted

a. basic needs;

b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory;

c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness;

d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay;

e. special needs of vulnerable persons.

Or. en

Amendment 1086

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed:

deleted

a. basic needs;

b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory;

c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness;

d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay;

e. special needs of vulnerable persons.

Or. en

Amendment 1087

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed:

deleted

a. basic needs;

b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory;

c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness;

d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay;

e. special needs of vulnerable persons.

Or. en

Amendment 1088

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed:

6. For the purpose of the review referred to in paragraph 5, and when considering the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed, Member States shall take the elements listed in paragraph 3 into account.

Or. en

Amendment 1089

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed:

6. During periods for which the removal has been postponed, Member States shall ensure the following:

Or. en

Amendment 1090

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed:

6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the return has been suspended or postponed:

Or. en

Amendment 1091

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. basic needs;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1092

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. basic needs;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1093

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. basic needs;

a. third country nationals’ basic needs are provided for;

Or. en

Amendment 1094

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1095

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1096

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory;

b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory is maintained;

Or. en

Amendment 1097

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1098

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness;

c. health care and treatment of illness are provided;

Or. en

Amendment 1099

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness;

c. health care and essential treatment of illness;

Or. en

Amendment 1100

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1101

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1102

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay;

d. access of minors to the basic education system is guaranteed subject to the length of their stay;

Or. en

Amendment 1103

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay;

d. access of children to the education system;

Or. en

Amendment 1104

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. special needs of vulnerable persons.

e. special needs of vulnerable persons are catered to.

Or. en

Amendment 1105

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Article 31 may be applied when the conditions are fulfilled.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1106

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Article 31 may be applied when the conditions are fulfilled.

7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Article 31 may be applied when the conditions therefor are fulfilled.

Or. en

Justification

If the conditions are fulfilled, then the provisions of Article 31 may be applied.

Amendment 1107

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Article 31 may be applied when the conditions are fulfilled.

7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Articles 21, 29, and 31 may be applied when the conditions are fulfilled.

Or. en

Amendment 1108

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

Article 14 – paragraph 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7 a. Removal shall not be postponed where the third-country national fails to comply with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21, where he or she poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16, or where a risk of absconding exists in accordance with Article 30.

Or. en

Amendment 1109

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 15

deleted

Monitoring of removal

1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during removal operations. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means.

2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the removal operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming removal operations and ensure access to relevant locations.

3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay.

Or. fr

Amendment 1110

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 15

deleted

Monitoring of removal

Or. en

Justification

The idea behind this regulation is to reduce administrative burdens, not to create new ones.

Amendment 1111

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 15

deleted

Monitoring of removal

Or. en

Amendment 1112

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Monitoring of removal

Monitoring of the return procedure

Or. en

Amendment 1113

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Monitoring of removal

Monitoring of return procedures

Or. en

Amendment 1114

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Monitoring of removal

Monitoring of return

Or. en

Amendment 1115

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

Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1116

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1117

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during all stages of the return procedure. Such mechanism shall complement and operate in full synergy with the relevant monitoring mechanisms established under Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 (Screening Regulation) and Article 43 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 (APR), and shall be established in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Fundamental Rights Agency. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means, including human and financial resources, as well as access to all necessary information and physical locations.

Or. en

Amendment 1118

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during return operations and cover all stages of the return procedure established in this Directive and the return border procedure established in Regulation (EU) 2024/1349. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means, including appropriate funding and resources.

Or. en

Amendment 1119

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism in accordance with the requirements set out in this Article, which shall:

Or. en

Amendment 1120

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States may provide for an existing mechanism to monitor removal operations. Member States determine if the monitoring mechanism is granted access to appropriate means.

Or. en

Amendment 1121

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall provide for a mechanism to monitor the effectiveness, efficiency and swiftness of removal operations. Member States shall ensure that the monitoring mechanism has access to the appropriate means.

Or. en

Amendment 1122

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) monitor compliance with Union and international law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular as regards the principle of non-refoulement, the best interests of the child and the relevant rules on detention; and

Or. en

Justification

The language of Article 15 has been enhanced with reference to the monitoring mechanisms established under the Pact, in particular, Article 10 of the Screening Regulation.

Amendment 1123

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) ensure that substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights in all relevant activities in relation to the return process are dealt with effectively and without undue delay, and trigger, where necessary, investigations into such allegations and monitor the progress of such investigations.

The independent monitoring mechanism shall cover all activities undertaken by the Member States implementing this Regulation. The independent monitoring mechanism shall have the power to issue annual recommendations to Member States. Member States shall put in place adequate safeguards to guarantee the independence of the independent monitoring mechanism. National Ombudspersons and national human rights institutions, including national preventive mechanisms established under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted on 18 December 2002 at the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly of the United Nations by resolution A/RES/57/199 (‘OPCAT’), shall participate in the operation of the independent monitoring mechanism and may be appointed to carry out all or part of the tasks of the independent monitoring mechanism. The independent monitoring mechanism may also involve relevant international and non-governmental organisations and public bodies independent from the authorities carrying out the screening. Insofar as one or more of those institutions, organisations or bodies are not directly involved in the independent monitoring mechanism, the independent monitoring mechanism shall establish and maintain close links with them. The independent monitoring mechanism shall establish and maintain close links with the national data protection authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor.

Or. en

Justification

Aligned with Article 10 Screening Regulation.

Amendment 1124

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 a. Member States shall establish appropriate safeguards to ensure the independence of the independent monitoring mechanism. National ombudsmen or human rights defenders and national human rights institutions, including the national preventive mechanism provided for in the Optional Protocol to the 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, shall participate in the functioning of the independent monitoring mechanism and may be appointed to carry out all or part of the functions of the independent monitoring mechanism.

Or. en

Amendment 1125

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 b. The independent monitoring mechanism may also involve the participation of relevant international and non-governmental organisations and public bodies that are independent of the authorities carrying out the return procedure. Insofar as one or more of those institutions, organisations or entities do not participate directly in the independent monitoring mechanism, the mechanism shall establish and maintain close links with them. The independent monitoring mechanism shall establish and maintain close links with the national data protection authorities and with the European Data Protection Supervisor.

Or. en

Amendment 1126

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 c. The Fundamental Rights Agency shall publish general guidelines for Member States on the establishment of a monitoring mechanism and its independent functioning. Member States may request the support of the Fundamental Rights Agency for the development of their independent monitoring mechanism, including the safeguards for its independence, as well as the monitoring methodology and appropriate training schemes.

Or. en

Amendment 1127

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 d. The independent monitoring mechanism shall ensure that its monitoring procedures incorporate a gender-sensitive perspective and include specific protocols for identifying and addressing gender-based violations. The independent monitoring body shall include experts trained in identifying gender-based violence, exploitation, and other rights violations affecting women and girls.

Or. en

Amendment 1128

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

Article 15 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1129

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1130

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Member state may inform the monitoring mechanism about upcoming removal operations and grant access to relevant locations and grant access only to persons acting on behalf the monitoring mechanism and who received necessary security clearance in accordance with national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1131

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the return procedures to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Such checks may be complemented by desk review. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming removal operations and ensure access to relevant locations.

Or. en

Amendment 1132

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the return operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which shall be unannounced. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming return operations and ensure access to relevant persons, documents and locations.

Or. en

Amendment 1133

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Member States may inform the monitoring mechanism about upcoming removal operations and grant access to relevant locations to persons acting on behalf of the monitoring mechanism who have received an appropriate security clearance issued by a competent authority in accordance with national law

Or. en

Amendment 1134

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select removal operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Member States shall inform the independent monitoring mechanism in advance about upcoming removal operations.

Or. en

Amendment 1135

Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2 a. Member States shall provide the independent monitoring mechanism with access to all relevant locations, including detention facilities, individuals and documents, in so far as such access is necessary to allow the independent monitoring mechanism to fulfil the obligations set out in this Article. Access to relevant locations or classified information shall be granted only to persons acting on behalf of the independent monitoring mechanism and having received appropriate security clearance issued by a competent authority in accordance with national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1136

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2 a. Member States shall extend the provision of an independent monitoring mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during the return border procedure.

Or. en

Amendment 1137

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1138

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1139

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during return operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority via establishing a confidential, child and gender-sensitive complaint mechanism by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay. Member States shall ensure, where appropriate, referral for the purposes of initiating civil or criminal judicial proceedings in cases of violation or breach of fundamental rights, in accordance with national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1140

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The monitoring mechanism shall establish and maintain a confidential, child-friendly and gender-sensitive complaints mechanism. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during the return procedure shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall investigate such allegations effectively and without undue delay, and shall ensure appropriate consequences in accordance with national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1141

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Substantiated allegations of failure to speedily and effectively implement removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay.

Or. en

Amendment 1142

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

Article 15 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay.

Or. en

Amendment 1143

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. The independent monitoring mechanism referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be without prejudice to the monitoring mechanism for the purpose of monitoring the Screening of third country nationals at external borders as set out in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 , to the monitoring of the border procedure as set out in Article 43, paragraph 4 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, and to the role of the fundamental rights monitors in monitoring respect of fundamental rights in all activities of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency as set out in Article 80 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896.

Or. en

Amendment 1144

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. The independent monitoring mechanism shall be empowered to make recommendations to Member States and shall publish an annual report on its activities and findings.

Or. en

Amendment 1145

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. The independent monitoring mechanism shall publish reports on its activities and findings related to return operations.

Or. en

Amendment 1146

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 3 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 b. Member States shall extend the mandate of the independent monitoring mechanism to enable monitoring of the respect of fundamental rights during the return border procedure.

Or. en

Amendment 1147

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 3 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 b. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism referred to in paragraph 1 with appropriate financial means.

Or. en

Amendment 1148

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 16

deleted

Return of third-country nationals posing security risks

1. This Article shall apply to third-country nationals where:

a. they pose a threat to public policy, to public security or to national security;

b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ;

c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State.

2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12.

3. By way of derogation from the relevant provisions of this Regulation, third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article may be:

a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years;

b. detained in accordance with Article 29(3), point (c);

c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners;

d. subject to detention for a period that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 32(3) and that is determined by a judicial authority taking into account the circumstances of the individual case, and that is subject to a review by a judicial authority at least every three months.

4. By way of derogation from the provisions of Article 28(2) and (3), the enforcement of a return decision issued to a third-country national falling within the scope of this Article shall not be suspended unless there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement.

_________________

27 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/584/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 1149

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 16

deleted

Return of third-country nationals posing security risks

1. This Article shall apply to third-country nationals where:

a. they pose a threat to public policy, to public security or to national security;

b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ;

c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State.

2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12.

3. By way of derogation from the relevant provisions of this Regulation, third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article may be:

a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years;

b. detained in accordance with Article 29(3), point (c);

c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners;

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 1150

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Return of third-country nationals posing security risks

Return of third-country nationals posing a risk to internal security

Or. en

Amendment 1151

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Return of third-country nationals posing security risks

Removal of third-country nationals posing security risks

Or. en

Amendment 1152

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. This Article shall apply to third-country nationals where:

1. Third-country nationals who are subject to a return decision and who, on the basis of an individual assessment, are considered to be a threat to public policy, internal security, public health or the international relations of any of the Member States shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 13.

Or. en

Justification

The language is aligned with refusal of entry grounds laid down in the Schengen Borders Code. This is the best parallel for return decisions. There should always be an individual assessment.

Amendment 1153

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. This Article shall apply to third-country nationals where:

1. This Article shall apply to third-country nationals, including unaccompanied minors, where:

Or. fr

Amendment 1154

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. they pose a threat to public policy, to public security or to national security;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1155

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ;

deleted

_________________

Or. en

Justification

This ground is already covered under point a.

Amendment 1156

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ;

b. there are indications that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA1 or have committed an offence carrying a penalty involving the deprivation of liberty of at least 3 months under national law;

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 1157

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

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ;

b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed or facilitated a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ;

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 1158

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ;

b. there are clear indications for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ;

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 1159

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ;

b. there are grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ;

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 1160

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b a. there are indications that the person is involved in any of the offences referred to in Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

Or. en

Amendment 1161

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

This ground is already covered under point a.

Amendment 1162

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

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State.

c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit or facilitate an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 1163

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State.

c. there are indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 1164

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State.

c. there are reasonable indications of their intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 1165

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. They have committed an offence carrying a penalty that is punishable with a sentence of at least 2 years in prison

Or. en

Amendment 1166

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. they have committed an offence carrying a penalty involving the deprivation of liberty under national law;

Or. en

Amendment 1167

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. there are indications that they pose any other security threat as identified under national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1168

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

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. they have been convicted of criminal offence in accordance with national legislation;

Or. en

Amendment 1169

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

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c b. there are clear indications that the third-country national is involved in activities that incite, support, or prepare for acts of violent extremism or terrorism;

Or. en

Amendment 1170

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c b. the third-country national is a citizen of a country listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2024/1348;

Or. en

Amendment 1171

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c b. they are repeat offenders of petty criminality;

Or. en

Amendment 1172

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

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c c. there are credible grounds to believe that the third-country national engages in conduct posing a threat to the fundamental interests or constitutional order of a Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 1173

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c c. the Member State finds it necessary, as provided for in national law, for reasons other than those listed in subparagraph (a) to (e).

Or. en

Amendment 1174

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 a. Member States may, in accordance with their national law, establish additional grounds for identifying a third-country national as a person posing a security risk.

Or. en

Amendment 1175

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12.

2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be prioritised for removal in accordance with Article 12. Member States shall remove the third-country national without undue delay.

Or. en

Amendment 1176

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12.

2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, with the exception of paragraphs 3, 4 and 6, which shall not apply to them.

Or. fr

Amendment 1177

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12.

2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal.

Or. en

Amendment 1178

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12.

2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal.

Or. en

Amendment 1179

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

Article 16 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2 a. Return decisions concerning third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article may be dealt with and executed as a matter of priority.

Or. en

Amendment 1180

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. By way of derogation from the relevant provisions of this Regulation, third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article may be:

3. By way of derogation from the relevant provisions of this Regulation, third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be:

Or. en

Amendment 1181

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1182

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years;

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Deleted to ensure consistency with article 10.

Amendment 1183

Rasa Juknevičienė

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years;

a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) or an entry ban for an indefinite duration where justified and proportionate to the security risk posed by the third-country national;

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 1184

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years;

Or. en

Amendment 1185

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years;

Or. en

Amendment 1186

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years;

a. subject to a lifelong entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10(7);

Or. fr

Amendment 1187

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years;

a. subject to a lifetime entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10.

Or. en

Justification

Those who pose a security risk should never be permitted on EU territory again.

Amendment 1188

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years;

a. subject to an initial entry ban that exceeds the duration referred to in Article 10(6);

Or. en

Amendment 1189

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners;

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Administrative law relating to immigration should not lead to a presumption of criminality. Third-country nationals who have committed criminal offences should be prosecuted under criminal law of the Member State in question. That is how criminals should be dealt with.

Amendment 1190

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners;

c. detained in prisons;

Or. en

Amendment 1191

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners;

c. detained in prisons or secure facilities and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners;

Or. en

Amendment 1192

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

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners;

c. detained in prisons and, where possible, be kept separated from ordinary prisoners;

Or. en

Amendment 1193

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners;

c. detained in prisons

Or. en

Amendment 1194

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners;

c. detained in prisons;

Or. en

Amendment 1195

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Deleted reference to maximum detention periods in Article 32. So deleted here for consistency.

Amendment 1196

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 1197

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. subject to detention for additional periods that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 32(3) and that is determined by a competent authority.

Or. en

Amendment 1198

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1199

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

Article 16 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. Third country nationals falling within the scope of this Article may be subject to a temporary or permanent entry ban in accordance with Article 10(7)(a).

Or. en

Amendment 1200

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1201

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Consistency with article 28, where appeal doesn't have suspensive effect at all.

Amendment 1202

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1203

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 28(2) and (3), the enforcement of a return decision issued to a third-country national falling within the scope of this Article shall not be suspended.

Or. fr

Amendment 1204

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The enforcement of a return decision issued to a third-country national falling within the scope of this Article shall not be suspended unless there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement.

Or. en

Justification

Article 28(2) and (3) provide guarantees of the right to an effective remedy. These rights apply to all persons in the EU, even those considered to be a risk to internal security. It may be reasonable to indicate that the only ground on which a removal in respect of such persons should be suspended is a risk of breach of principle of non-refoulement. Whether such a risk exists must be able to be examined by a court in accordance with Article 28.

Amendment 1205

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

Article 16 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4 a. Security assessments carried out during the return procedure may rely on and take into account any previous security checks conducted by competent authorities in the framework of other procedures, including asylum, visa, border control, or screening procedures.

Or. en