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 1606

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The legal assistance and representation shall consist of the preparation of the appeal or request for review, including, at least, the preparation of the procedural documents required under national law and, in the event of a hearing, participation in that hearing before a judicial authority to ensure the effective exercise of the right of defence. Such assistance shall not affect any assistance provided for under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.

3. The legal assistance and representation shall consist of, at least, the preparation of the procedural documents required under national law, the preparation of the appeal itself and, in the event of a hearing, participation in that hearing before a court or a tribunal to ensure the effective exercise of the right of defence. Such assistance shall not affect any assistance provided for under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.

Or. en

Justification

See Article 17 APR

Amendment 1607

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national.

4. Free legal assistance and representation financed or provided by the third-country national’s country of origin, including through consular services or through accredited legal professionals appointed or funded by that country, shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons, admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the third country national or by non-governmental organisations accredited under national law to provide legal services or representation to third country nationals.

Or. en

Amendment 1608

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by independent lawyers.

Or. en

Amendment 1609

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict with observance of national law or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national.

Or. fr

Amendment 1610

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons or organisations, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 1611

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Free legal assistance and representation offered by origin or citizenship country of the third-country national, including through consular or accreditated legal professionals funded by that country shall be provided by admitted or permitted persons accordingly to national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1612

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national.

Or. en

Justification

It is not clear who other suitably qualified persons would be if they are not legal adviser who can appear before a Court or Tribunal.

Amendment 1613

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Legal assistance and representation shall be provided by suitably qualified persons, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 1614

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The provision of free legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure may be excluded by the Member States where:

deleted

a. the third-country national is considered to have sufficient resources to afford legal assistance and representation at his or her own cost;

b. it is considered that the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive;

c. the appeal or review is at a second level of appeal or higher, as provided for under national law, including re-hearings or reviews of appeal;

d. the third-country national is already assisted or represented by a legal adviser.

Or. en

Amendment 1615

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The provision of free legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure may be excluded by the Member States where:

deleted

a. the third-country national is considered to have sufficient resources to afford legal assistance and representation at his or her own cost;

b. it is considered that the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive;

c. the appeal or review is at a second level of appeal or higher, as provided for under national law, including re-hearings or reviews of appeal;

d. the third-country national is already assisted or represented by a legal adviser.

Or. en

Amendment 1616

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The provision of free legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure may be excluded by the Member States where:

deleted

a. the third-country national is considered to have sufficient resources to afford legal assistance and representation at his or her own cost;

b. it is considered that the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive;

c. the appeal or review is at a second level of appeal or higher, as provided for under national law, including re-hearings or reviews of appeal;

d. the third-country national is already assisted or represented by a legal adviser.

Or. en

Amendment 1617

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The provision of free legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure may be excluded by the Member States where:

5. Where free legal assistance and representation is provided pursuant to national law, Member States may exclude or end its provision on any of the grounds listed below, without prejudice to their ability to rely on additional grounds provided for in national law:

Or. en

Amendment 1618

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The provision of free legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure may be excluded by the Member States where:

5. The provision of legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure may be excluded by the Member States where duly justified.

Or. en

Amendment 1619

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the third-country national is considered to have sufficient resources to afford legal assistance and representation at his or her own cost;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1620

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the third-country national is considered to have sufficient resources to afford legal assistance and representation at his or her own cost;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1621

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. it is considered that the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1622

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. it is considered that the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive;

deleted

Or. en

Justification

To determine that an appeal is without merit or is abusive, it will require a Court or tribunal to examine the case.

Amendment 1623

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. it is considered that the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1624

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. the appeal or review is at a second level of appeal or higher, as provided for under national law, including re-hearings or reviews of appeal;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1625

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. the appeal or review is at a second level of appeal or higher, as provided for under national law, including re-hearings or reviews of appeal;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1626

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. the third-country national is already assisted or represented by a legal adviser.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1627

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. the third-country national is already assisted or represented by a legal adviser.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1628

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d a. the third-country national is a national of a country designated as a safe third country or safe country of origin in accordance with the relevant provisions of Union law;

Or. en

Amendment 1629

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 25 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d a. the third-country national has failed to cooperate with the competent authorities to an extent that substantially hinders the proper examination of the appeal.

Or. en

Amendment 1630

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d a. the third-country national has failed, without justified reason, to comply with obligations to cooperate under Article 21

Or. en

Amendment 1631

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

da. any other criteria defined in the national law of the Member States.

Or. fr

Amendment 1632

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d b. the third-country national is subject to a criminal investigation or has been convicted of a criminal offence, and national law requires that legal assistance in immigration or return proceedings be limited or excluded in such cases;

Or. en

Amendment 1633

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d b. The third-country national already received subsidised or free legal assistance during his asylum procedure.

Or. en

Amendment 1634

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d c. the third-country national poses a threat to public policy or public security, and national law provides for restricted access to free legal assistance in such circumstances;

Or. en

Amendment 1635

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d d. the third-country national has expressly chosen to represent themselves, in accordance with national law, and has declined the assistance of a legal adviser;

Or. en

Amendment 1636

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d e. the appeal is lodged solely to delay enforcement of the return decision, and the competent authorities conclude that legal assistance would not materially alter the outcome or the third-country national has a history of repeated, successive, or serial appeals against return decisions that have been previously rejected as unfounded or abusive;

Or. en

Amendment 1637

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d f (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d f. the third-country national has absconded, failed to appear at required appointments, or cannot be located, and national law provides that legal assistance may be restricted in such cases;

Or. en

Amendment 1638

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d g (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d g. the third-country national refuses to cooperate with the steps necessary for readmission or removal, including contact with consular authorities or completion of necessary documentation;

Or. en

Amendment 1639

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d h (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d h. the third-country national engages in violent, threatening, or disorderly behaviour against staff, legal advisers, or other persons involved in the return procedure, and national law provides consequences including restriction of access to legal assistance;

Or. en

Amendment 1640

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d i (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d i. the third-country national has failed, without justified reason, to agree to or to comply with a repayment arrangement for the costs of legal assistance or representation previously provided at public expense, where national law allows such costs to be recovered and where the competent authorities have offered a reasonable repayment schedule.

Or. en

Amendment 1641

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d j (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d j. legal assistance and representation are already being provided by consular services or accredited lawyers appointed or funded by the third-country national’s country of origin;

Or. en

Amendment 1642

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d k (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d k. other measures or consequences than the abovementioned, where provided for in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1643

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 – point d l (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d l. identity fraud, destruction of documents, or the provision of false information has been established, and national law allows exclusion or limitation of publicly funded legal assistance in such cases;

Or. en

Amendment 1644

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5 a. Where an appeal is lodged, the competent judicial authority may, where possible in a preliminary ruling, determine whether the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive for the purposes of paragraph 5(b) of this Article.

Or. en

Amendment 1645

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5 b. Member States shall provide for the recovery of costs for legal assistance where a judicial authority has determined that the appeal was abusive or had no tangible prospect of success.

Or. en

Amendment 1646

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5 c. the third-country national fails to comply with the obligation to disclose his or her financial situation as laid down in paragraph 6.

Or. en

Amendment 1647

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The third-country national requesting free legal assistance and representation shall disclose his or her financial situation.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1648

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The third-country national requesting free legal assistance and representation shall disclose his or her financial situation.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1649

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The third-country national requesting free legal assistance and representation shall disclose his or her financial situation.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1650

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The third-country national requesting free legal assistance and representation shall disclose his or her financial situation.

6. The third-country national requesting free legal assistance and representation shall, in order to allow the competent authorities to assess the fulfilment of the condition under paragraph 5(a), disclose his or her financial situation.

Or. en

Amendment 1651

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The third-country national requesting free legal assistance and representation shall disclose his or her financial situation.

6. The third-country national requesting legal assistance and representation shall disclose his or her financial situation.

Or. en

Amendment 1652

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may:

deleted

a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation, provided that such limits are not arbitrary and do not unduly restrict access to free legal assistance and representation nor undermine the exercise of the right of defence;

c. provide that, as regards fees and other costs and reimbursements, the treatment of third-country nationals shall be equal to, but not more favourable than, the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance.

Or. en

Amendment 1653

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may:

7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may impose monetary limits or time limits on the provision of free legal counselling, assistance and representation, provided that such limits are not arbitrary and do not unduly restrict access to free legal counselling, assistance and representation.

Or. en

Justification

As regards fees and other costs, the treatment of applicants shall not be less favourable than the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance.

Amendment 1654

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may:

7. Member States may:

Or. en

Amendment 1655

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may:

7. Member States may:

Or. en

Amendment 1656

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may:

7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, in line with rules applicable to own nationals and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may:

Or. en

Amendment 1657

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may:

7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States shall:

Or. en

Amendment 1658

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may:

7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied children, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may:

Or. en

Amendment 1659

Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may:

7. With the exception of any assistance provided to vulnerable persons, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may:

Or. en

Amendment 1660

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation,

Or. en

Amendment 1661

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of legal assistance and representation.

Or. en

Amendment 1662

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation.

Or. en

Amendment 1663

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation, provided that such limits are not arbitrary or discriminatory and do not unduly restrict access to free legal assistance and representation nor undermine the exercise of the right of defence;

Or. en

Amendment 1664

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 25 – paragraph 7 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1665

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. Member States may request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred for free legal assistance and representation where the third-country national’s financial situation has improved during the return procedure, where the decision to grant such assistance or representation was taken on the basis of false or incomplete information provided by the third-country national, or where any of the conditions for exclusion or termination of free legal assistance and representation, as set out in paragraph 5, subsequently apply. Member States may further seek reimbursement or contribution to such costs from the third-country national’s country of origin, including through its consular services, where appropriate under national law or bilateral arrangements

Or. en

Amendment 1666

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 25 – paragraph 7 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred where the third-country national’s financial situation has improved during the return procedure or where the decision to provide free legal assistance and representation was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the third-country national. Member States shall be able to recover the full costs of legal assistance where it is established that the appeal was abusive or lodged in bad faith;

Or. en

Amendment 1667

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. request from citizenship or origin country as well as from third-country national total reimbursement of costs incurred in reference to the return procedure, including free legal assistance and representation;

Or. en

Amendment 1668

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred where the decision to provide free legal assistance and representation was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the third-country national;

Or. en

Justification

The reimbursement of costs is an unreasonable burden on a returnee unless the granting of free legal assistance was based on false information provided by the returnee.

Amendment 1669

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred where the third-country national’s financial situation has significantly improved during the return procedure or where the decision to provide free legal assistance and representation was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the third-country national;

Or. en

Amendment 1670

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1671

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1672

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. provide that, as regards fees and other costs and reimbursements, the treatment of third-country nationals shall not receive more favourable treatment than, the treatment generally given to their nationals, without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to apply higher fees or require reimbursement in accordance with national law

Or. en

Amendment 1673

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. provide that, as regards fees and other costs and reimbursements, third-country nationals shall not receive more favourable treatment that are offered to their nationals, without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to apply higher fees or reimbursement accordingly to national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1674

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. As regards fees and other costs, the treatment of returnees shall not be less favourable than the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance.

Or. en

Amendment 1675

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7 a. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which requests for free legal assistance and representation are filed and processed, or apply existing rules for domestic claims of a similar nature, provided that those rules do not render access to free legal assistance and representation excessively difficult or impossible, particularly with regard to the provisions of paragraph 9 read in conjunction with the timeline for lodging an appeal at first instance laid down in Article 27, paragraph 1.

Or. en

Justification

Given the very tight timeframe for lodging an appeal, the decision whether or not to grant legal aid must be taken very quickly to allow the provision in paragraph 9 to be meaningful.

Amendment 1676

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7 a. Member States shall provide that, as regards access, fees and other costs and reimbursements, the treatment of third-country nationals shall be equal to the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance.

Or. en

Amendment 1677

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7 a. Member States shall ensure that free or subsidised legal assistance provided pursuant to this Article shall be equal to, but not more favourable than, the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance.

Or. en

Amendment 1678

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which requests for free legal assistance and representation are filed and processed, or apply existing rules for domestic claims of a similar nature, provided that those rules do not render access to free legal assistance and representation excessively difficult or impossible.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1679

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1680

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1681

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which requests for legal assistance and representation are filed and processed, or apply existing rules for domestic claims of a similar nature.

Or. en

Amendment 1682

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 25 – paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1683

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which free legal assistance and representation operate or apply existing rules, provided that those rules do not render access to free legal assistance and representation excessively difficult or impossible.

Or. en

Amendment 1684

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9. Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation is taken by an authority which is not a judicial authority on the grounds that the appeal is considered to have no tangible prospect of success or to be abusive, the applicant shall have the right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority against that decision. For that purpose, the applicant shall be entitled to request free legal assistance and representation.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1685

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1686

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1687

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1688

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9. Where free legal assistance and representation is reduced, the applicant shall have the right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority against that decision. For that purpose, the applicant shall be entitled to free legal assistance and representation.

Or. en

Amendment 1689

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 25 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1690

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

10. Member States may provide for free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1691

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

10. Member States may provide for free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1692

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

10. Member States may provide for free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1693

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

10. Member States may provide for free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law.

10. Member States shall provide for free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law. Legal assistance and representation during the administrative procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the preparation of the statements and documents required under national law during the administrative procedure, and, in the case of a personal interview, participation therein before the competent authorities, as well as the preparation of the appeal or administrative review.

Or. en

Amendment 1694

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

10. Member States may provide for free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law.

10. Member States may provide for legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1695

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) before a competent judicial authority.

1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10, Article 11, Article 12(2) and Article 14 before a competent judicial authority.

Or. en

Amendment 1696

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) before a competent judicial authority.

1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 22 and Article 29 before a competent judicial authority.

Or. en

Justification

The decisions to impose administrative penalties under Article 22 and the decision to detain the person under Article 29 must also be subject to an effect remedy. If such measures are taken against an EU citizen by the State, that citizen would always enjoy the right to an effective remedy

Amendment 1697

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) before a competent judicial authority.

1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7(1), Article 10 and Article 12(2) before the judicial authority competent according to national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1698

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) before a competent judicial authority.

1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions taken under this Regulation before a competent judicial authority.

Or. en

Amendment 1699

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 a. Without prejudice to the time limits referred to in Article 27(1) of this Regulation, where a return decision referred to in Article 7 is issued in the same act as, or together with, a decision rejecting an application for international protection pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, Member States shall ensure that any challenge to the return decision is lodged jointly with the effective remedy against the decision rejecting the application for international protection, before the same judicial authority.

Or. en

Amendment 1700

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 b. In cases not covered by paragraph 2, where a decision referred to in paragraph 1 is issued together with other decisions under this Regulation, such as an entry ban pursuant to Article 10, Member States shall ensure that the right to an effective remedy is exercised in a single, consolidated judicial proceeding to examine all relevant factual and legal grounds.

Or. en

Amendment 1701

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both points of facts and points of law.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1702

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both points of facts and points of law.

2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full examination of both points of facts and points of law, including compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement.

Or. en

Amendment 1703

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 26 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both points of facts and points of law.

2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full examination of both points of facts and points of law.

Or. en

Amendment 1704

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both points of facts and points of law.

2. The effective remedy shall provide for an examination of both points of facts and points of law.

Or. en

Amendment 1705

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both points of facts and points of law.

2. The effective remedy shall provide for an examination of both points of facts and points of law.

Or. en

Amendment 1706

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States shall ensure that compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement is verified by the competent judicial authority, at the request of the third-country national or ex officio.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1707

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1708

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1709

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1710

Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1711

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. When the third-country national has initiated proceedings against the enforcement of a return decision or removal order, the court or tribunal may ex-officio verify, when material in the file suggests that the principle of non-refoulement might be undermined, whether the authorities of the Member State are in compliance with the obligations set out in Article 12(3) in order to respect the principle of non-refoulement.

Or. en

Amendment 1712

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States shall ensure that compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement is verified by the competent judicial authority.

Or. en

Amendment 1713

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1714

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. Where a third-country national has been the subject of a decision rejecting an application for international protection, that person may not, in an appeal against a return decision under Article 7 or a removal order under Article 12, appeal that decision on the grounds that removal to the country of origin would violate the principle of non-refoulement if that risk was already assessed and dismissed in the decision for international protection.

Or. en

Justification

The APR regulates the procedure through which an asylum claim is examined and this procedure includes an assessment of the risk of refoulement. Appeals on these grounds must therefore not be possible in an appeal against a return decision, as a decision on refoulement has already been concluded.

Amendment 1715

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article26a

Limitation on the scope of appeal concerning the principle of non-refoulement

1. Notwithstanding the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 26, where a third-country national has been the subject of a decision rejecting an application for international protection which has become executory, that person may not, in an appeal against a return decision under Article 7 or a removal order under Article 12(2), challenge that decision on the grounds that removal to the country of origin would violate the principle of non-refoulement, if that risk was already assessed and dismissed in the decision for international protection in accordance with Article 55 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. The lodging of a renewed application shall be the sole procedure for the examination of any new elements or findings that have arisen or been presented by the applicant which are relevant to the assessment of a potential violation of the principle of non-refoulement.

Or. en

Justification

To ensure procedural clarity, the assessment of non-refoulement must have a single, designated forum. Where an asylum claim was made, the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR) is the exclusive framework for assessing protection needs. The safeguards in this Regulation apply only where no such prior assessment was conducted under the APR. This clear division of procedures prevents duplication, avoids re-litigation of the same issues, and guarantees legal certainty for all parties.

Amendment 1716

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days.

1. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days.

Or. en

Amendment 1717

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. For the purpose of applying this Regulation, the period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days.

Or. en

Amendment 1718

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in that Article, providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance in relation to decisions taken under Article, 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), shall be between a minimum of two weeks and a maximum of one month.

Or. en

Justification

This is aligned with Article 67(7)(b) APR. To ensure that the returnee does not have a shorter deadline to appeal the return decision than to appeal the refusal of asylum, it is imperative that Member States align their deadlines with the maximum duration permitted under APR. It also aligns better with the period within which a returnee can accept the return decision and leave.

Amendment 1719

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall ensure that their national law lays down sufficiently short time limits to ensure that the competent judicial authority of first instance can examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) as quickly as possible, providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 3 days.

Or. fr

Amendment 1720

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for third country nationals to appeal a return decision and the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall be of minimum 14 days and maximum of 2 months.

Or. en

Amendment 1721

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority to examine the decisions taken under this Regulation, providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall be at least 15 days.

Or. en

Amendment 1722

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial or administrative authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days.

Or. en

Amendment 1723

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 27 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1724

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 5 days.

Or. en

Amendment 1725

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Time limits referred to in paragraph 1 shall start to run from the date when any of the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) are notified to the third-country national, or from another date to be determined by national law, notably when the third-country national concerned has absconded.

2. Time limits referred to in paragraph 1 shall start to run from the date when any of the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10, Article 11, Article 12(2) and Article 14, are notified to the third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 1726

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Where the third-country national has exercised their right to an effective remedy before a competent judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27, the judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the removal should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy.

Or. en

Amendment 1727

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1728

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1729

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 27 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2 a. Where the return concerns third-country nationals posing a security risk under Article 16, the time limit shall be as short as possible and shall not exceed 48 hours.

Or. en

Amendment 1730

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Where a return decision is based on, or issued in, the same act as a decision refusing or ending the legal stay, the time limits to appeal the return decision may be those laid down in national law for appealing a decision ending or refusing legal stay.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

This provides no legal certainty. To provide a minimum degree of harmonisation, the period for lodging an appeal should be laid down in EU law. It should be sufficient to allow the returnee to effectively exercise her right to a remedy and it should not be open to revision by way of national law.

Amendment 1731

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Where an entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision.

4. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 1732

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Where an entry ban and/or decision ordering the removal is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, they shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban and/or decision ordering the removal is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately.

Or. en

Amendment 1733

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 27 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Where a removal order and/or entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where a removal order or an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 1734

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Where an entry ban or decision ordering the removal is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 1735

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Where an entry ban or a removal order is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, they shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 1736

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Where an entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial or administrative authority and within the same proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 1737

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Where an entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision.

Or. en

Justification

For consistency. See Art 10.

Amendment 1738

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Where the documents are not submitted in due time, as determined by the competent judicial authority, in the event that the translation is to be provided by the applicant, or where documents are not submitted in time for the judicial authority to ensure that they are translated in the event that the translation is ensured by the competent judicial authority, the judicial authority may refuse to take those documents into account.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1739

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Justification

It is for the judicial authority to decide on the admissibility of evidence. There is no competence under EU law to determine rules on admissibility of evidence in national courts.

Amendment 1740

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Where the documents are not submitted in due time, as determined by the competent judicial authority, the judicial authority may refuse to take those documents into account.

Or. en

Amendment 1741

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Where the documents are not submitted in due time, as determined by the competent judicial authority, in the event that the translation is to be provided by the applicant, or where documents are not submitted in time for the judicial authority to ensure that they are translated in the event that the translation is ensured by the competent judicial authority, for reasons that are beyond the control of the applicant, the judicial authority may refuse to take those documents into account.

Or. en

Amendment 1742

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Where the documents are not submitted in due time, as determined by the competent judicial or administrative authority, in the event that the translation is to be provided by the applicant, or where documents are not submitted in time for the judicial authority to ensure that they are translated in the event that the translation is ensured by the competent judicial or administrative authority, the judicial authority may refuse to take those documents into account.

Or. en

Amendment 1743

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 27 – paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5 a. In the context of the mandatory mutual recognition referred to in Article 9, the return decision issued to the third-country national may only be challenged before the competent authority of the issuing Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 1744

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 28

deleted

Suspensive effect

1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired.

3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended unless the third-country national requests suspension and a competent judicial authority decides to grant it, taking due account of the specific circumstances of the individual case.

4. A decision on the application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision shall be taken within 48 hours. In cases involving complex issues of fact or law, that time-limit may be exceeded.

Or. en

Amendment 1745

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 28

deleted

Suspensive effect

Or. en

Amendment 1746

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1747

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) may upon request or ex officio be suspended, for the period for lodging the appeal in accordance with Article 27, or the period pending the outcome of the appeal, by the competent judicial authority of first instance. Member States may under national law determine whether the suspension shall be granted upon request or ex officio. This shall be without prejudice to provisions in national law according to which first instance remedies have a suspensive effect.

Or. en

Amendment 1748

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. All effects of the return decision shall be automatically suspended until the time limit within which third-country nationals can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority referred to in Article 27 has expired. If an appeal is lodged, the enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the examination of the appeal, including any subsequent appeal, and until the applicant has been notified of the final decision on the appeal.

Or. en

Amendment 1749

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to this Regulation shall not be suspended.

Or. en

Amendment 1750

Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) may upon request of the third-country national exercising his or her right to an effective remedy be suspended, provided that he or she demonstrates, on the basis of credible, objective and up-to-date evidence, the execution of the return decision would expose them to a concrete and individual risk of serious harm in the country of return.

Or. en

Amendment 1751

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall not be suspended by the third-country national exercising his or her right to an effective remedy, unless the person concerned demonstrates, on the basis of credible, objective and up-to-date evidence, the execution of the return decision would expose them to a concrete and individual risk of serious harm in the country of return.

Or. en

Amendment 1752

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. fr

Amendment 1753

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10, Article 11, Article 12(2) and Article 14 shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority referred to in Article 27 has expired and, when such right has been exercised within the time limit, until the resolution of the appeal.

Or. en

Amendment 1754

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which returnees can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired, and, where such right has been exercised within the time-limit, pending the outcome of the remedy.

Or. en

Justification

Aligned with Article 68(2) APR. The suspensive effect must be in place until the Court has ruled on the requested remedy. This will facilitate the work of the Court and reduce bureaucratic burden for the returnees, their lawyers and national administrations.

Amendment 1755

Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 a. In the assessment of this request, the competent authorities may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the return procedure, and where relevant, the asylum procedure.

Or. en

Amendment 1756

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 a. All subsequent appeals allowed in national law should have suspensive effect.

Or. en

Amendment 1757

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1758

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1759

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1760

Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1761

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 28 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1762

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Justification

This is an unnecessary bureaucratic step which only confuses the decision on the merits of the return decision, and a possible decision on suspending enforcement of the return decision while the Court decides on the merits of the return decision.

Amendment 1763

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1764

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. The enforcement of the return decision may be suspended where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement, unless the third-country national poses a security risk. In such cases, the judicial authority may authorise the transfer of the third-country national to a country in which the national resided before entering the territory of the Union or to a third country with which the European Union or the Member State has concluded a transfer agreement.

Or. fr

Amendment 1765

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1766

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1767

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1768

Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1769

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1770

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 28 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1771

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended.

Or. fr

Amendment 1772

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended.

Or. en

Amendment 1773

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged, the removal shall not be suspended. This shall be without prejudice to provisions in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1774

Jeroen Lenaers

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1775

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1776

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1777

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1778

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 28 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1779

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1780

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The competent judicial authorities shall endeavour to take a decision on an application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision referred to in paragraph 3 within 48 hours. In cases involving complex issues of fact or law, that time-limit may be exceeded.

Or. en

Justification

The second sentence of this paragraph makes it clear that in many cases 48 hours will not be sufficient to reach a decision (and possibly not practical for the Court or tribunal concerned). In any case, under the principle of subsidiarity and the separation of powers, it is not the role of the EU legislature to establish deadlines for national courts.

Amendment 1781

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. A decision on the application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision shall be taken within 24 hours.

Or. en

Amendment 1782

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Chapter V – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

V PREVENTION OF ABSCONDING AND DETENTION

V DETENTION

Or. en

Amendment 1783

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Grounds for detention

Exceptional grounds for detention as a last resort measure

Or. en

Amendment 1784

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate.

1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation only as a last resort, on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate, reasonable and necessary to effect the return. Member States shall assess if other sufficient but less coercive measures, including the measures set out in Article 31, can be applied effectively. If so, detention shall not be applied.

Or. en

Amendment 1785

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate.

1. Member States may, as a measure of last resort, detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is necessary and proportionate. Before detaining a returnee, Member States shall consider alternatives to detention in accordance with Article 31.

Or. en

Justification

Detention should remain a measure of last resort. Alternatives to detention - as the name suggests - should be considered before detention is ordered.

Amendment 1786

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate.

1. Detention of a third-country national shall be permitted only in exceptional circumstances, where it is necessary and proportionate, and strictly limited to cases where there is a risk of absconding of an individual who poses a concrete, imminent, evidence-based and serious security threat.

Or. en

Amendment 1787

Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate.

1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is a proportionate measure of last resort.

Or. en

Amendment 1788

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate.

1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case.

Or. fr

Amendment 1789

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate.

1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case.

Or. en

Amendment 1790

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 a. The existence of a risk of absconding in regard to a third-country national who poses a concrete, imminent, evidence-based and serious security threat shall be determined on the basis of an individual assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, an evaluation of the proportionality and only on the basis of an exhaustive list of objective criteria laid down in national legislation. The risk of absconding shall not be automatically presumed on the basis of the third country national's past conduct.

Or. en

Amendment 1791

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 b. Unless alternatives to detention pursuant to Article 31 can be applied, Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Directive on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate, necessary and as a last resort. Minors shall never be detained as detention is never a proportionate measure in the best interest of the child.

Or. en

Amendment 1792

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of preparing the return or carrying out the removal.

2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of preparing the return or carrying out the removal and only if other alternative measures to detention under Article 31 are not applicable.

Or. en

Amendment 1793

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of preparing the return or carrying out the removal.

2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of preparing the return or carrying out the removal and when it is not possible to apply the measures set out in Article 31.

Or. en

Amendment 1794

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of preparing the return or carrying out the removal.

2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of return, including for preparing the return, readmission, and carrying out the removal.

Or. en

Amendment 1795

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of preparing the return or carrying out the removal.

2. Member States may keep a third-country national in detention in order to prepare the return or execute the removal.

Or. en

Amendment 1796

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. A third-country national may only be detained based on one or more of the following grounds for detention:

deleted

a. risk of absconding determined in accordance with Article 30;

b. the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of the return or the removal process;

c. the third-country national poses security risks in accordance with Article 16;

d. to determine or verify his or her identity or nationality;

e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31.

Or. en

Amendment 1797

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. A third-country national may only be detained based on one or more of the following grounds for detention:

3. A third-country national may be detained based on one or more of the following grounds for detention, without prejudice to other grounds provided for by national law:

Or. fr

Amendment 1798

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. risk of absconding determined in accordance with Article 30;

a. risk of absconding determined in accordance with Article 21A;

Or. en

Amendment 1799

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a a. violation of Member State law;

Or. en

Amendment 1800

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of the return or the removal process;

b. the third-country national deliberately hampers the preparation of the return or the removal process;

Or. en

Amendment 1801

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of the return or the removal process;

b. the third-country national has deliberately obstructed the preparation of the return procedure;

Or. en

Justification

It is not clear how a third country national can avoid the return without absconding, which is covered below. Removal forms part of the return procedure.

Amendment 1802

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of the return or the removal process;

b. the third-country national avoids or hampers readmission, the preparation of the return, or the removal;

Or. en

Amendment 1803

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. the third-country national poses security risks in accordance with Article 16;

c. the third-country national poses a threat to internal security in accordance with Article 16;

Or. en

Justification

For consistency with Article 16.

Amendment 1804

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. the third-country national poses security risks in accordance with Article 16;

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

Or. en

Amendment 1805

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. to determine or verify his or her identity or nationality;

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Given the obligation on the returnee to provide biometrics under the Eurodac Regulation, the obligation on the returnee to provide all documentation that identifies him/her and the fact that EU law already provides for a screening procedure to identify irregular arrivals, it is not proportionate to detain someone to verify identity or nationality. All appropriate steps will already have been taken to identify the person.

Amendment 1806

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. to determine or verify his or her identity or nationality;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1807

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. to determine or verify his or her identity or nationality;

d. to determine or verify his or her identity, nationality or age;

Or. en

Amendment 1808

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

da. failure by the third-country national to comply with the obligation to cooperate;

Or. fr

Amendment 1809

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d a. lack of cooperating in obtaining travel or identity documents;

Or. en

Amendment 1810

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point d b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

db. if detention is likely to facilitate the implementation and effective enforcement of the return procedure;

Or. fr

Amendment 1811

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1812

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31.

e. non-compliance with the obligations under Article 21, paragraph 2, points (a) to (c), (e), (fa) and (i) to (ka), including lack of cooperation in obtaining travel documents;

Or. en

Amendment 1813

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31.

e. non-compliance, on more than one occasion, with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31.

Or. en

Justification

Immediate detention following one instance of non-compliance is not proportionate.

Amendment 1814

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 29 – paragraph 3 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31.

e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 21 and Article 31.

Or. en

Amendment 1815

Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31.

e. deliberate non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31.

Or. en

Amendment 1816

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31.

e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 8(3) and 31.

Or. en

Amendment 1817

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31.

e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31 or 21.

Or. en

Amendment 1818

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 29 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e a. any other relevant factor that indicates the detention is necessary to ensure timely and effective return, as determined by Member States, and in accordance with national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1819

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e a. other relevant grounds related to return, provided for in national law, to ensure effective return procedures, that are necessary and proportionate.

Or. en

Amendment 1820

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e a. to return the third-country national to the issuing Member State pursuant to Article 9;

Or. en

Amendment 1821

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 – point e b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e b. any other duly justified reason in accordance with national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1822

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. Member States may define other grounds for detention in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1823

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Those detention grounds shall be laid down in national law.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1824

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Those detention grounds shall be laid down in national law.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

The grounds for detention are established in paragraph 3. As this is a Regulation, there is no need to transpose these grounds into national law.

Amendment 1825

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Those detention grounds shall be laid down in national law.

4. Those detention grounds shall also be laid down in national law.

Or. fr

Amendment 1826

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Those detention grounds shall be laid down in national law.

4. Any grounds for detention shall be laid down in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1827

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand.

5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be communicated orally or in writing to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand, including with the use of interpretation or translation services.

Or. en

Amendment 1828

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1829

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies, in accordance with Article 26. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be supposed to understand.

Or. en

Amendment 1830

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Detention shall be ordered by judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands.

Or. en

Amendment 1831

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national orally or in writing in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand.

Or. en

Amendment 1832

Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1833

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account any visible signs, statements or behaviour related to, or made or shown by, the third-country national indicating that he or she is a vulnerable person.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1834

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1835

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. fr

Justification

This paragraph would run counter to the very spirit of the Regulation, since, as a matter of principle, a person who has entered the territory of the Union irregularly is very likely to be in a situation of economic and social vulnerability. Vulnerability cannot therefore constitute a criterion excluding the possibility of detention. On the other hand, making detention a rule rather than an exception can also serve as a deterrent against irregular entry into the territory of the Union, while ensuring the protection and supervision of the third-country national pending the decision in their regard.

Amendment 1836

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account whether the third-country national is a vulnerable person.

Or. en

Amendment 1837

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account whether the third-country national is a vulnerable person.

Or. en

Amendment 1838

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Vulnerability should be taken into account in a meaningful way.

Amendment 1839

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 3, Member States shall take into account any visible signs, statements or behaviour related to, or made or shown by, the third-country national indicating that he or she is a vulnerable person.

Or. en

Amendment 1840

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 29 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6 a. Member States may order detention upon release from prison for the purpose of return procedures when a third-country national is subject to a removal order under Article 12, provided that detention is justified based on relevant risk factors.

Or. en

Amendment 1841

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6 a. Member States shall not apply or shall cease to apply detention when a third-country national is identified as a person in a vulnerable situation in accordance with Article 6.

Or. en

Amendment 1842

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 30

deleted

Risk of absconding

1. There is a risk of absconding in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the following criteria is fulfilled:

a. the third-country national has moved without authorisation to the territory of another Member State or other Member States, including following a transit through a third country, or attempts to do so;

b. the third-country national is subject to a return decision or enforcing decision issued by a Member State other than the one on the territory of which the person is currently staying illegally, including as detected through the alerts entered in the Schengen Information System pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1860;

c. non-compliance with the measures pursuant to Article 23.

2. In cases not covered by paragraph 1, the risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case and where one of the following criteria regarding the third-country national concerned is met:

a. lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;

b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures;

c. non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13;

d. non-compliance with the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the procedures pursuant to this Regulation, as referred to in Article 21(2), points (a) to (k);

e. when departure is imminent and there are serious reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2), point (l);

f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure;

g. opposing the return procedure violently;

h. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban.

Or. en

Amendment 1843

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. There is a risk of absconding in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the following criteria is fulfilled:

1. The risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, including any vulnerabilities. Only the following criteria may indicate a risk of absconding:

Or. en

Amendment 1844

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. There is a risk of absconding in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the following criteria is fulfilled:

1. There is a risk of absconding, in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, where one of the following criteria regarding the illegally staying third-country national concerned is fulfilled:

Or. en

Amendment 1845

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. There is a risk of absconding in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the following criteria is fulfilled:

1. The existence of a risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an assessment of the circumstances of the individual case, on the basis of the following criteria:

Or. en

Justification

A risk of absconding cannot be presumed in certain cases, it should always entail an assessment.

Amendment 1846

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the third-country national has moved without authorisation to the territory of another Member State or other Member States during the return procedure, including following a transit through a third country, or attempts to do so;

Or. en

Amendment 1847

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the third-country national has entered or moved without authorisation to the territory of a Member State, including following a transit through a third country, or attempts to do so;

Or. en

Amendment 1848

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the returnee has moved, on more than one occasion, without authorisation to the territory of another Member State or other Member States, including following a transit through a third country;

Or. en

Justification

As the reasons why a TCN might try to move between MS can be varied, it is disproportionate to assume a risk of absconding based on a single move to another MS by the returnee.

Amendment 1849

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. the returnee explicitly expresses an intention not to comply with the return procedure;

Or. en

Justification

Moving between Member States is addressed in point a. Where a returnee explicitly indicates that she does not intend to comply with a return procedure, then this is a factor in determining a risk of absconding.

Amendment 1850

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. the third-country national is subject to a return decision or enforcing decision issued by a Member State other than the one on the territory of which the person is currently staying irregularly, including as detected through the alerts entered in the Schengen Information System pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1860;

Or. en

Amendment 1851

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. the third-country national is subject to a return decision issued by a Member State other than the one on the territory of which the person is currently staying illegally, including as detected through the alerts entered in the Schengen Information System pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1860;

Or. en

Amendment 1852

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b a. The returnee repeatedly fails to cooperate with the return authorities with regard to the provisions of Article 21, paragraph 2;

Or. en

Justification

Repeated failure to cooperate is a factor in determining a risk of absconding.

Amendment 1853

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. non-compliance with the measures pursuant to Article 23.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

The non-compliance on provisions regarding residence and/or reporting do not necessarily relate to a risk of absconding.

Amendment 1854

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. non-compliance with the measures pursuant to Article 23.

c. the third-country national does not comply with one or more of the measures imposed in accordance with Article 23, paragraph 1, and Article 21, paragraph 1, or expresses or demonstrates intent to do so;

Or. en

Amendment 1855

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. non-compliance with the measures pursuant to Article 23.

c. serious and repeated non-compliance with the measures pursuant to Article 23;

Or. en

Amendment 1856

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. serious and repeated non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13;

Or. en

Amendment 1857

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. expression or presumed expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures;

Or. en

Amendment 1858

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. non-compliance with the obligation to return by the date on which the returnee is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13;

Or. en

Amendment 1859

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. the third-country national has re-entered the territory of the Member States in breach of an existing entry ban;

Or. en

Amendment 1860

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. the third-country national has re-entered the territory of the Member States in violation of a valid entry ban;

Or. en

Amendment 1861

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 30 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c a. opposing the return procedure violently;

Or. en

Amendment 1862

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c b. the third-country national has expressed an intention of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or has taken actions clearly demonstrating such an intention;

Or. en

Amendment 1863

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c b. when departure is imminent and there are objective reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2), point (l).

Or. en

Amendment 1864

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c b. non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13;

Or. en

Amendment 1865

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c b. the third-country national has a lack of social anchoring, in particular the absence of family ties, engagement of illegal employment and insufficient means of subsistence.

Or. en

Amendment 1866

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c b. opposing the return procedure violently;

Or. en

Amendment 1867

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c c. using or attempting to purchase false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure;

Or. en

Amendment 1868

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c c. the third-country national is a national of a country designated as a safe country listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Or. en

Amendment 1869

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c c. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban.

Or. en

Amendment 1870

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 30 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c c. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban;

Or. en

Amendment 1871

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c d. non-compliance with the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the procedures pursuant to this Regulation, as referred to in Article 21(2);

Or. en

Amendment 1872

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c d. the third-country national has failed to comply with the obligation to leave the territory of the Member States within the period set out in Article 13;

Or. en

Amendment 1873

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c e. the third-country national has used false or forged documents, destroyed or otherwise disposed of such documents, used aliases with fraudulent intent, provided other false information, or otherwise fraudulently obstructed the return or readmission procedure;

Or. en

Amendment 1874

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c e. when departure is imminent and there are serious reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2);

Or. en

Amendment 1875

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 30 – paragraph 1 – point c e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c e. the third country national is considered to be a security risk in line with Article 16.

Or. en

Amendment 1876

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c f (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c f. opposing the return procedure physically;

Or. en

Amendment 1877

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c g (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c g. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban;

Or. en

Amendment 1878

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c h (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c h. lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;

Or. en

Amendment 1879

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point c i (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c i. other criteria where provided for in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1880

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

a. lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;

b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures;

c. non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13;

e. when departure is imminent and there are serious reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2), point (l);

f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure;

g. opposing the return procedure violently;

h. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban.

Or. en

Amendment 1881

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

a. lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;

b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures;

c. non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13;

e. when departure is imminent and there are serious reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2), point (l);

f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure;

g. opposing the return procedure violently;

h. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban.

Or. en

Justification

Some of the provisions above have been merged into paragraph 1. However, the provision in point f already exists in relation to the obligation to cooperate. Continued failure to cooperate in point d can lead to detention. It is not, of itself, evidence of an intention to abscond. The provision in point g may well be a ground for detention, but again it does not establish a risk of absconding. In point h, given the increased length of entry bans, and the uncertainty surrounding notifications to persons of entry bans, it is not at all clear how the fact of re-entering the EU establishes a risk of absconding. Regarding point a, in the context of the reception crisis in many MS, it is disproportionate to punish returnees for not having a fixed address, and to presume it would lead to absconding.

Amendment 1882

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

a. lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;

b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures;

c. non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13;

e. when departure is imminent and there are serious reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2), point (l);

f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure;

g. opposing the return procedure violently;

h. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban.

Or. en

Amendment 1883

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. In cases not covered by paragraph 1, the risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an assessment of the circumstances of the individual case. The assessment shall include one or more of the following criteria regarding the illegally staying third-country national concerned:

Or. en

Amendment 1884

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. In cases not covered by paragraph 1, the risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an assessment of the individual case and where one of the following criteria regarding the third-country national concerned is met:

Or. en

Amendment 1885

Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address;

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Experiencing homelessness is hereby considered sufficient grounds to be detained. Regardless of their administrative status, it should not be accepted as an automatic policy response for homeless people

Amendment 1886

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1887

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures;

b. non-compliance with the obligation to leave the territory of the Member States within the departure period as set out in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 1a, point (a)

Or. en

Amendment 1888

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 30 – paragraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures;

b. expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures;

Or. en

Amendment 1889

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13;

c. when departure is imminent and there are reasons to believe that the third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21, paragraph 2, point (a);

Or. en

Amendment 1890

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure;

Or. en

Amendment 1891

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 30 – paragraph 2 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. non-compliance with the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the procedures pursuant to this Regulation, as referred to in Article 21(2);

Or. en

Amendment 1892

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. when departure is imminent and there are serious reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2), point (l);

e. not attending return and reintegration counselling, where required by the competent authorities;

Or. en

Amendment 1893

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 – point f

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure;

f. other criteria than (a) to (e) where provided for in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1894

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 – point f

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure;

f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, refusing to hand over to the competent authorities electronic terminal equipment and any decryption agreements relating thereto in connection with the obligations laid down in Article 21, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure;

Or. fr

Amendment 1895

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 30 – paragraph 2 – point g

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

g. opposing the return procedure violently;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1896

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 – point g

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

g. opposing the return procedure violently;

g. opposing the return procedure verbally or physically;

Or. en

Amendment 1897

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 – point g

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

g. opposing the return procedure violently;

g. opposing the return procedure physically;

Or. en

Amendment 1898

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 – point h

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

h. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1899

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 30 – paragraph 2 – point h

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

h. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1900

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 30 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2 a. Member States may determine that a third-country national poses a risk of absconding on the basis of additional factors or evidence recognised under national law, insofar as these elements justify such a conclusion and contribute to ensuring the effective and timely enforcement of the return decision.

Or. en

Amendment 1901

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2 a. Member States may in national law lay down additional grounds to paragraph 1 and 2.

Or. en

Amendment 1902

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 31

deleted

Alternatives to detention

1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30.

2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures:

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances;

b. the obligation to surrender identity or travel documents to the competent authorities;

c. the obligation to reside in a place designated by competent authorities;

d. deposit of an adequate financial guarantee;

e. the use of electronic monitoring, including guarantees and procedures provided for under national law.

3. A decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 shall state the relevant reasons in fact and in law.

4. Third-country nationals shall be notified of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be informed about the consequence of non-compliance with that decision, including pursuant to Article 29(3), point (e), and the legal remedies referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article.

5. Member States shall ensure that the decisions taken in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article are reviewed speedily by a judicial authority on application by the person concerned or ex officio, and at the latest within two months.

Or. en

Amendment 1903

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph -1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

-1. Before applying detention, Member States shall duly assess whether alternatives to detention may be applicable. Such alternatives shall be necessary, proportionate, of limited duration and may only be applied when and as long as at least one ground for detention under Article 29 applies.

Or. en

Amendment 1904

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States may provide for alternative measures to detention in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1905

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. In case of a risk of absconding as set out in Article 30, paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States may impose alternative measures to detention in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1906

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Without prejudice to the measures imposed pursuant to Article 23, Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1907

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall be considered before ordering detention. They shall be necessary and proportionate, taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any gender-, LGBTIQ+, age-, and trauma-related vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the objectives of the measure.

Or. en

Amendment 1908

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 31 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall primarily aim to ensure the effective and timely return of the third-country national, taking into account the assessed risk of absconding.

Or. en

Amendment 1909

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall not be prevented to impose one of the measures in this Regulation as an alternative to detention. Member States may lay down these measures in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1910

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Prior to ordering detention, Member States shall consider whether alternative measures to detention may be ordered instead taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities pursuant to Article 6a, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30.

Or. en

Justification

Detention should remain a measure of last resort.

Amendment 1911

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States may provide for alternative measures to detention in accordance with their national law. Such measures shall be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30.

Or. fr

Amendment 1912

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall provide for at least two alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures may be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30.

Or. en

Amendment 1913

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures:

2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for at least two of the following measures:

Or. en

Amendment 1914

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures:

2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for one or more of the following measures:

Or. en

Amendment 1915

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 31 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures:

2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for one or more of the following measures:

Or. en

Amendment 1916

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures:

2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for at least the following measures:

Or. en

Amendment 1917

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures:

2. For that purpose, Member States may order any of the following measures:

Or. en

Amendment 1918

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures:

2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide the following measures:

Or. en

Amendment 1919

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances;

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities every day;

Or. en

Amendment 1920

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances;

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities as determined by national law;

Or. en

Amendment 1921

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances;

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities based on the individual circumstances;

Or. fr

Amendment 1922

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances;

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 7 days, based on the individual circumstances;

Or. en

Justification

As the reporting obligation is supposedly based on the individual circumstances of the returnee, it is not proportionate to insist on it occurring at least every three days.

Amendment 1923

Ana Miguel Pedro

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances;

a. the obligation, in accordance with national law, to report regularly to the competent authorities;

Or. en

Amendment 1924

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances;

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities at regular intervals and at least every day;

Or. en

Amendment 1925

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances;

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a reasonable frequency based on the individual circumstances;

Or. en

Amendment 1926

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances;

a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency accordingly to national law;

Or. en

Amendment 1927

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a a. community management programmes under supervision of relevant local authorities, or other designated bodies or organisations;

Or. en

Justification

EUAA Guidelines on alternatives to detention.

Amendment 1928

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point a b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a b. sponsorship by a citizen or long-term resident;

Or. en

Justification

EUAA Guidelines on alternatives to detention.

Amendment 1929

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b. the obligation to surrender identity or travel documents to the competent authorities;

b. when strictly necessary, the obligation to surrender identity or travel documents to the competent authorities;

Or. en

Amendment 1930

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. deposit of an adequate financial guarantee;

d. deposit of a reasonable and proportionate financial guarantee;

Or. en

Amendment 1931

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d. deposit of an adequate financial guarantee;

d. deposit of a substantial financial guarantee;

Or. en

Amendment 1932

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. the use of electronic monitoring, including guarantees and procedures provided for under national law.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1933

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. the use of electronic monitoring, including guarantees and procedures provided for under national law.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1934

Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. the use of electronic monitoring, including guarantees and procedures provided for under national law.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1935

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. the use of electronic monitoring, including guarantees and procedures provided for under national law.

e. the use of electronic monitoring,

Or. en

Amendment 1936

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e. the use of electronic monitoring, including guarantees and procedures provided for under national law.

e. the use of electronic monitoring.

Or. en

Amendment 1937

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e a. referral to specialised services for survivors of trafficking, gender-based violence, sexual violence, LGBTIQ+ individuals, and families with children.

Or. en

Amendment 1938

Rasa Juknevičienė

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e a. accommodating the third-country national in a centre, only allowing him/her to leave the centre if the risk of absconding is managed.

Or. en

Justification

The exhaustive list of alternatives to detention set out in Article 31(2) is not sufficient. I therefore propose expanding the list of alternatives to detention by including measures that would be effective for transit Member States in preventing secondary movements — for example, the possibility to accommodate the third-country national in a centre and only allow him or her to leave the premises where the risk of absconding is duly managed — or by providing Member States with the flexibility to establish other alternatives in national law.

Amendment 1939

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 31 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e a. restriction of movement to designated areas or curfews for high-risk individuals.

Or. en

Amendment 1940

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e a. obligation to communicate, where available, an address;

Or. en

Amendment 1941

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e a. other alternatives where provided in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1942

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e a. other measures where provided for in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 1943

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e b. sponsorship by a citizen or a long-term resident;

Or. en

Amendment 1944

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e c. community management programmes or tailored supervision;

Or. en

Amendment 1945

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e d. referral to individualised case management programmes;

Or. en

Amendment 1946

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e e. placement in community-based accommodation;

Or. en

Amendment 1947

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e f (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e f. supervision by community-based sponsors or civil society organisations;

Or. en

Amendment 1948

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e g (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e g. conditional release where that is necessary for family unity;

Or. en

Amendment 1949

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point e h (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e h. referral to protection services for survivors of gender-based violence, trafficking or torture, unaccompanied children, or persons with special needs as an alternative to custodial arrangements.

Or. en

Amendment 1950

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2 a. Member States shall not provide for alternative measures to detention for third country nationals who pose, or are presumed to reasonably pose, a threat to public security or national security.

Or. en

Amendment 1951

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 31 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. A decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 shall state the relevant reasons in fact and in law.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1952

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. A decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 shall state the relevant reasons in fact and in law.

3. A decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 shall state the relevant reasons in fact and in law and its maximum duration. Member States shall choose the least intrusive, effective measures available. In the event that it is decided not to apply any of these measures and to order detention, the third country national shall be informed with the relevant factual and legal reasons in writing.

Or. en

Amendment 1953

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. A decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 shall state the relevant reasons in fact and in law.

3. A decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 shall state the relevant reasons in fact and in law as well as the maximum duration of their application. Member States shall choose the least intrusive effective measure available.

Or. en

Amendment 1954

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. The restrictions imposed, considered individually or cumulatively, may not amount to a situation comparable to deprivation of liberty.

Or. en

Amendment 1955

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1956

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Third-country nationals shall be informed of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and the consequence of non-compliance with that decision, including detention under Article 29.

Or. en

Amendment 1957

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 31 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 1958

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Third-country nationals shall be notified in writing of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be informed about the consequence of non-compliance with that decision and the legal remedies referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article.

Or. en

Amendment 1959

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Returnees shall be notified of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be informed about the consequence of non-compliance with that decision, including pursuant to Article 29(3), point (e), and the legal remedies referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article.

Or. en

Amendment 1960

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1961

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1962

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 31 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Member States shall ensure that the decisions taken in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article are reviewed by a judicial authority on application by the person concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 1963

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Member States shall ensure that the decisions taken in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article are reviewed by a judicial authority on application by the person concerned or ex officio.

Or. en

Amendment 1964

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return.

1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible, only for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled, as long as a reasonable prospect of return exists and as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.

Or. en

Amendment 1965

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return.

1. Detention shall be maintained only for as long as is necessary to prepare or carry out the removal. It shall be terminated where the third-country national demonstrates a clear intention to cooperate with the return procedure and substantiates this intention through concrete actions.

Or. en

Amendment 1966

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return.

1. Detention shall be maintained for long as necessary to carry out the return or removal.

Or. en

Amendment 1967

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return.

1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled.

Or. en

Amendment 1968

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return.

1. Detention shall be maintained for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return.

Or. fr

Amendment 1969

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return.

1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and only for as long as it is necessary and proportionate to ensure successful return.

Or. en

Justification

The conditions in Article 29 include hampering a return process and not complying with certain obligations. It is not possible to decide that such conditions are no longer fulfilled.

Amendment 1970

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return.

1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the grounds laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return.

Or. en

Amendment 1971

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 32 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return.

1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as necessary to ensure the effective and timely return of the third-country national.

Or. en

Amendment 1972

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. When it appears that the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, detention shall cease to be justified and the third-country national shall be released. Such release shall not preclude the application of measures to prevent the risk of absconding in accordance with Article 31.

2. When it appears that the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, the third-country national shall be released.

Or. en

Amendment 1973

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. When it appears that the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, detention may cease to be justified and the third-country national may be released upon a decision by the competent authorities taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national. Such release shall not preclude the application of measures to prevent the risk of absconding in accordance with Article 31.

Or. en

Amendment 1974

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. When it appears that the grounds laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, the third-country national shall be released from detention pursuant to this Regulation. Such release shall not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Articles 21, 23, 30, 31.

Or. en

Amendment 1975

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. When the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, detention shall cease to be justified and the third-country national shall be released.

Or. en

Amendment 1976

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Where a third-country national is released on the basis of a demonstrated intention to cooperate with the return procedure, at least one alternative to detention pursuant to Article 31 shall be applied.

Or. en

Amendment 1977

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. When it appears that the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, the third-country national may be released. Such release shall not preclude the application of measures to prevent the risk of absconding in accordance with Article 31.

Or. fr

Amendment 1978

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1979

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a Member State. Where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries, detention may be applied for a longer period but shall not exceed 48 months in a Member State.

Where the third country national has moved to another Member State and his conduct constitutes a ground for detention as referred in Article 29(3), a new period of detention shall apply.

Detention periods under other regulations or directives should not be included in calculating the maximum period of detention.

Or. en

Amendment 1980

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Duration of detention is determined by a Member State law.

Or. en

Amendment 1981

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The detention shall not exceed 1 month in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 1 month.

Or. en

Amendment 1982

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months. After 6 months of detention, the return authorities shall review the return decision pursuant to Article 33, paragraph 2 .

Or. en

Justification

Detention periods should be limited and MS should consider the options open to them where a returnee cannot be returned.

Amendment 1983

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 32 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries, or exceptional circumstances affecting the return process in accordance with national legislation.

Or. en

Amendment 1984

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The detention should not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may however be extended for a minimum of a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries, in order to enable detention until the return is actually carried out.

Or. fr

Amendment 1985

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The detention shall not exceed 3 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 3 months in a given Member State where the return procedure lasts longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned.

Or. en

Amendment 1986

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The detention shall not exceed an initial period of 24 months. Where the return procedure is prolonged due to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, in particular a failure to comply with the obligations set out in this Regulation, this period may be extended by renewable periods of up to 12 months.

Or. en

Amendment 1987

Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The detention shall not exceed 6 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries.

Or. en

Amendment 1988

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. Detention may, after the expiry of the maximum detention period of 48 months pursuant to paragraph 3, be applied for additional periods of up to 12 months, whenever there is a risk of absconding and where a reasonable prospect of removal has emerged due to one or more of the following changes in circumstances:

a. there is new significant information on the third-country national’s identity;

b. travel document has been obtained, or may reasonably be presumed to be obtained due to change in circumstances;

c. cooperation with the third country has improved.

Or. en

Amendment 1989

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The expiry of the maximum detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Article 31.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1990

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The expiry of the maximum detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Article 31.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1991

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The expiry of the maximum detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Article 31.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 1992

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The expiry of the maximum detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Article 31.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

The end of a maximum period of detention should not provide an excuse for a Member State to use alternatives to detention.

Amendment 1993

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The expiry of the maximum detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Article 31.

4. The expiry of the maximum detention periods in accordance with paragraph 3 and 3a does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Articles 21, 23, 30, 31.

Or. en

Amendment 1994

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The expiry of the maximum detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Article 31.

4. The detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of exceptional measures in accordance with Article 31.

Or. fr

Amendment 1995

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4 a. Where a third-country national is cooperating on their return during detention, the voluntary return of the third-country national concerned shall be organised without undue delay. Detention may, where relevant, be maintained until departure to ensure effective return in respect of paragraph 3 and 3a.

Or. en

Amendment 1996

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 32 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4 a. Member States may prolong the detention of third-country nationals identified as posing a security risk in accordance to Article 16(3)(c) for a period that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in paragraph 3.

Or. en

Amendment 1997

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Review of detention orders

Review of detention orders and alternatives to detention

Or. en

Amendment 1998

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.

1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every six months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio, unless the third-country national meets the conditions set out in Articles 16, 29 and 30; in that case, the review may take place only after the expiry of the minimum detention period provided for in Article 32.

Or. fr

Amendment 1999

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.

1. Detention shall be reviewed ex officio as prescribed in national law.

Or. en

Amendment 2000

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.

1. Detention may be reviewed ex officio in accordance with national law.

Or. en

Amendment 2001

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.

1. Without prejudice to the returnees right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months.

Or. en

Justification

A review of a decision ordering detention cannot interfere with a returnee's right to an effective remedy.

Amendment 2002

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.

1. Detention and alternatives to detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every four weeks.

Or. en

Amendment 2003

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.

1. Detention and alternatives to detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every 4 weeks ex officio.

Or. en

Amendment 2004

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.

1. Detention shall be reviewed according to national law.

Or. en

Amendment 2005

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 33 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.

1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time, normally every six months, either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.

Or. en

Amendment 2006

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.

1. Member States shall ensure that detention is reviewed at least every nine months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.

Or. en

Amendment 2007

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 a. Where a returnee has been detained for 6 months, the return authorities shall review the return decision taking into account the likelihood of return actually being carried out and in the light of Member State’s competence as referred to in Article 7, paragraph 9.

Or. en

Justification

Given that evidence has shown that the longer a returnee is in detention, the less likely that that person is to be returned, Member State's return authorities should review the return decision itself on a six-monthly basis.

Amendment 2008

Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 2009

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

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 2010

Mélissa Camara

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 2011

Nadine Morano

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months.

2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months, unless they pose a security risk in accordance with Article 16 or a risk of absconding; in that case, the review may take place only after the expiry of the minimum detention period provided for in Article 32.

Or. fr

Amendment 2012

Marieke Ehlers

on behalf of the PfE Group

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months.

2. Detention of unaccompanied children shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals as prescribed in national law, and at least every three months, or on the duly justified request of the representative pursuant to Article 20(2).

Or. en

Amendment 2013

Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months.

2. Member States shall ensure that detention of unaccompanied minors is reviewed at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.

Or. en

Amendment 2014

Mary Khan

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months.

2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time.

Or. en

Amendment 2015

Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Where detention has been ordered or extended by administrative authorities, Member States shall ensure that all relevant facts, evidence and observations submitted during the proceedings are subject to judicial review, by providing that:

deleted

a. any judicial review of the lawfulness of detention be concluded as speedily as possible after the beginning of the detention, and no later than 15 days thereafter; or

b. the third-country national concerned be granted the right to initiate proceedings by means of which the lawfulness of detention is subject to judicial review, to be concluded as speedily as possible after the launch of the relevant proceedings, and no later than 15 days thereafter. In such cases Member States shall immediately upon detention inform the third-country national concerned about the possibility of initiating such proceedings.

Or. en