What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

Removed:MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

Removed:on the implementation of the Return Directive

Removed:(2019/2208(INI))

30 unchanged paragraphs

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948,

– having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,

– having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights,

– having regard to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention), and in particular the right to non-refoulement,

– having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in particular Articles 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 18, 19, 20 and 47 thereof,

– having regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 19 December 2018,

– having regard to the Twenty Guidelines on Forced Return, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 4 May 2005,

– having regard to Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (‘the Return Directive’),

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third country nationals (‘SIS return’),

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection,

– having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union related to Directive 2008/115/EC, including Cases C357/09 Kadzoev, C61/11 El Dridi, C534/11 Arslan, C-146/14 Mahdi, C554/13 Z. Zh., C47/15 Sélina Affum, C-82/16 K.A. and Others and C-181/16 Gnandi,

– having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights related to Directive 2008/115/EC, including Amie and Others v. Bulgaria (application No 58149/08), N.D. and N.T. v. Spain (application Nos 8675/15 and 8697/15) and Haghilo v. Cyprus (application No 47920/12),

– having regard to the Commission communication of 28 March 2014 on EU Return Policy (COM(2014)0199),

– having regard to the Commission communication of 13 May 2015 on a European Agenda on Migration (COM(2015)0240),

– having regard to the conclusions of the European Council summits of October 2016 and June 2018,

– having regard to the Council’s non-binding common standards of 11 May 2016 for Assisted Voluntary Return (and Reintegration) Programmes implemented by Member States,

– having regard to the Commission communication of 2 March 2017 on a more effective return policy in the European Union – a renewed Action Plan (COM(2017)0200),

– having regard to Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/432 of 7 March 2017 on making returns more effective when implementing the Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,

– having regard to Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/2338 of 16 November 2017 establishing a common ‘Return Handbook’ to be used by Member States’ competent authorities when carrying out return related tasks,

– having regard to the 2017 Synthesis Report of the European Migration Network entitled ‘The effectiveness of return in EU Member States: challenges and good practices linked to EU rules and standards’,

– having regard to the Commission proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 September 2018 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (recast) (COM(2018)0634),

– having regard to the Commission communication of 4 December 2018 on managing migration in all its aspects: progress under the European agenda on migration (COM(2018)0798),

– having regard to the Commission communication of 16 April 2020 on COVID-19: Guidance on the implementation of relevant EU provisions in the area of asylum and return procedures and on resettlement (C(2020)2516),

– having regard to its resolution of 12 April 2016 on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration,

– having regard to its resolution of 5 April 2017 on addressing refugee and migrant movements: the role of EU External Action,

– having regard to its position of 13 March 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund,

 having regard to the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 24/2019 of November 2019 entitled ‘Asylum, relocation and return of migrants: time to step up action to address disparities between objectives and results’,

– having regard to the European Parliamentary Research Service’s (EPRS) Substitute Impact Assessment of March 2019 on the proposed recast Return Directive,

– having regard to the EPRS’ European Assessment of June 2020 providing an evaluation of the implementation of the Return Directive and of the external dimension of the Return Directive,

Changed:– having regard to the Frontex evaluation report 15 of June 2020 on return operations in the 2nd semester of 2019,

Changed:– having regard to the 4th Annual Report of Europol’s European Migrant Smuggling Centre of 15 of May 2020,

– having regard to the reports on the application of the Schengen acquis in the field of return produced in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 of 7 October 2013 establishing an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis and repealing the Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998 setting up a Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen,

Changed:– having regard to the Council of Europe’s handbook of 17 September 2019 entitled ‘Practical Guidance on Alternatives to Immigration Detention: Fostering Effective Results’;Results’,

Changed:– having regard to the analysis of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) of the Council of Europe of 7 December 2017 on Legal and practical aspects of effective alternatives to detention in the context of migration;migration,

4 unchanged paragraphs

– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making,

– having regard to its resolution of 30 May 2018 on the interpretation and implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making,

– having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0238/2020),

Change 2

Changed:A. whereas the Commission has only assessed the implementation of the Return Directive once (in 2014), despite the legal obligation under Article 19 of thethat directiveDirective to report on its application every three years, starting from 2013; whereas in 2015 the Commission published a communication setting out an action plan on returns; whereas in 2017 it issued a recommendation on making returns more effective when implementing Directivethe 2008/115/ECReturn Directive and published a Return Handbook; whereas in September 2018, without carrying out an impact assessment, the Commission presented a proposal to recast the Return Directive to achieve a more effective and coherent return policy; whereas the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) mandated the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS)EPRS to provide a substitute impact assessment on the proposed recast; whereas this assessment points to the lack of evidence that the recast proposal would lead to more effective returns;

Change 3

Changed:B. whereas the twofold objective of the directiveReturn Directive is to establish common rules concerning effective return in line with fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality; whereas in its recommendation on making returns more effective, the Commission focuses on the rate of returns as an indicator of the directive’sReturn Directive’s effectiveness and recommends measures which may have the unwanted effect of limiting certain safeguards of thethat directive,Directive, such as the right to appeal and to make use of longer detention periods; whereas sustainable returns and successful reintegration are important indicators in the assessment of the effectiveness of returns; whereas post-return monitoring is currently not sufficiently comprehensive and accurate; whereas evidence has emerged that not all returns are sustainable, especially in relation to unaccompanied minors, owing to a lack of a personal reintegration plan or support upon return;

C. whereas the Commission has noted that Member States face several barriers to effective returns, of a procedural, technical and operational nature, inter alia the level of cooperation among all stakeholders involved, including with third countries; whereas identification of returnees and the need to obtain the necessary documentation from third countries has been identified by the Commission as one of the main reason for non-return;

Change 4

Changed:D. whereas the lack of harmonisation has a deep impact on return practices among Member States; whereas the evaluations carried out by the Commission when publishing its recommendation on making returns more effective indicated that 'the margins of discretion left to the Member States by Directivethe 2008/115/ECReturn Directive led to an inconsistent transposition in national legislations, with a negative impact on the effectiveness of the Union return policy' and that 'a more effective implementation of that Directivedirective would reduce possibilities of misuse of procedures and remove inefficiencies, while ensuring the protection of fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union';

E. whereas the Commission, in its action plan on return published in 2015, expressed the view that voluntary returns were the preferred option whenever possible; whereas - again, as stated by the Commission in its action plan - 'it is estimated that around 40 % of returns were voluntary departures, [up] from just 14 % in 2009'; whereas, according to the Commission's estimates, 300 000 people per year cannot be returned owing to administrative barriers, health issues or the risk of refoulement; whereas their situation should be addressed, including by granting them a legal status on humanitarian grounds;

Change 5

Changed:F. whereas data relating to the implementation of the directiveReturn Directive is publicly available through Eurostat but is not in all cases disaggregated and comparable; whereas more information may be provided with the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals (‘SIS return’) and with Regulation (EU) 2020/851 amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection;

Change 6

Changed:G. whereas between 2014 and 2018 the number of irregular border crossings decreased from 1.821,82 million to 142 000; whereas Member States issued around 3 million first residence permits in 2019; whereas the number of asylum applications decreased from 1.291,29 million in 2015 to 698 000 in 2019; whereas in 2018, Member States issued 283 880 return decisions, of which 147 815 people returned;

H. whereas Member States do not systematically share information on the return decisions or entry bans they issue, meaning that the mutual recognition of return decisions issued by Member States and their enforcement Union-wide is, in practice, impossible; whereas in order to increase the efficiency of readmissions, and in order to ensure the coherence of returns at a European level, formal EU agreements should take preference over bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries;

General observations

Change 7

Changed:1. Notes the lack of an implementation assessment from the Commission and calls on the Commission to carry out such an assessment, which was due in 2017,in2017, in compliance with Article 19 of the directiveReturn Directive and in line with the principle of better law-making;

Change 8

Changed:2. Reiterates the importance of an evidence-based common approach to guide coherent policy-making and well-informed public discourse and calls on the Commission to urge and support Member States to collect and publish qualitative and quantitative data on the implementation of the directive,Return Directive, particularly data on entry bans and detention, as these are the categories currently not collected by Eurostat, and making use in particular of the newly available instruments such as SIS return and Regulation (EU) 2020/851 amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection; invites Member States to collect statistics on this basis of Regulation (EU) 2020/851 as soon as possible and to participate in the associated pilot studies; notes with concern the lack of available data, including data disaggregated by gender and age, concerning the implementation of the directive;Return Directive;

Change 9

Changed:3. Is concerned that since 2015, the number of return decisions enforced has been decreasing and notes that this number does not necessarily correspond to an increase or decrease in irregular entries; stresses thanthat an effective return policy is one of the key elements of a well-functioning EU asylum and migration policy; notes that, according to the Commission’s statement, the return rate decreased from 46 % in 2016 to 37 % in 2017 and that this may not present the full picture, owing to the inherent margin of discretion that Member States have in the implementation of the directive,Return Directive, notably difficulties in cooperation with third countries, the fact that some Member States issue more than one return decision to one person, that decisions are not withdrawn if the return does not take place owing to humanitarian reasons, that some people are not returnable as their return would violate the principle of non-refoulement, or that some people return voluntarily without their return being registered; underlines that not every return decision is followed by swift return and readmission procedures owing to practical and legal obstacles and notes with concern that this can cause serious strain, not only on local facilities, but on the people involved;

Change 10

Changed:4. Shares the Commission’s objective of improving the effective implementation of the directiveReturn Directive and the effectiveness of return procedures in the Member States; calls on the Commission to launch infringement procedures where justified; highlights that the effectiveness of the directiveReturn Directive should be measured by referring to the return rate as well as by the sustainability of returns and implementation of fundamental rights safeguards, the respect for procedural guarantees and the effectiveness of voluntary returns; stresses that the measuring of the effective implementation of the directiveReturn Directive should be further enhanced and further streamlined among Member States in order to strengthen the transparency and comparability of data;

5. Notes that the Commission has stated that the lack of third-country identification and readmission of returnees is one of the main reasons for non-return; stresses the need to improve relations with third countries in a constructive migration dialogue based on equality, in order to ensure mutually beneficial cooperation for effective and sustainable returns;

Change 11

Changed:6. Takes note of the informalisation of cooperation with third countries; calls on the Member States to urge and enable the Commission to conclude formal EU readmission agreements coupled with EU parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight; stresses that incentives should be offered to facilitate cooperation; notes that the bilateral readmission agreements used pursuant to Article 6(3) of the directiveReturn Directive do not offer adequate procedural safeguards, including notification to the person concerned of an individual measure and information regarding available and effective remedies and recourse to appeal; notes that Member States face challenges in regularly ensuring the full occupancy of seats available for returnees in return operations using charter flights coordinated by Frontex; notes with concern that in some cases the option to carry out joint Frontex return operations is excluded by bilateral agreements between organising or participating Member States and non-EU countries of destination;

7. Stresses the need for more cooperation on returns between the Member States, including information sharing and the application of Directive 2001/40/EC on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals , in line with fundamental rights guarantees; underlines the need for support, including operational support, by the relevant Union agencies; stresses the need for increased cooperation between the Member States and Frontex;

8. Calls on the Member States to allocate adequate capacity, including human resources and sufficient training, to authorities responsible for taking and implementing return decisions, and in doing so to invest in the quality of their decision-making and implementation;

9. Stresses the importance of fair, swift and effective procedures for the return of third-country nationals staying irregularly on Union territory, including those whose applications have been rejected, with respect for the fundamental rights of the persons concerned;