What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

Return decisions and voluntary departure

Change 12

Changed:10. Points to the importance in the directiveReturn Directive of ensuring migrants’ compliance with return decisions and recalls the key principle enshrined in thethat directive that voluntary returns should be prioritised over forced returns where there are no serious reasons to believe that this would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, as voluntary returns are more sustainable, less costly and cumbersome for states and more apt to respect the fundamental rights of the person concerned; calls on the Commission to continue considering voluntary returns as the preferred option over forced returns and to encourage Member States to develop an effective framework for access to voluntary return programmes;

11. Calls on the Commission to continue to provide funding for and increase the resources available to assisted voluntary return programmes in order to encourage the use of such programmes with the ultimate aim of ensuring sustainable returns and reintegration;

Change 13

Changed:12. Highlights that under Article 7 of the directive,Return Directive, a return decision shall, as a general rule, provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of between 7 and 30 days, which Member States shall extend where necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case; points to the exceptions laid out in Article 7(4) of the directive;Return Directive; notes that Member States’ national programmes to assist voluntary departure are sometimes insufficient in scope and means; recalls that Member States that offer this period for voluntary departure only following an application must inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility to submit such an application;

Change 14

Changed:13. Welcomes the provisions in several Member States which allow for individual circumstances to be duly taken into account and for extensions to a period for voluntary departure to be granted; recalls that, in cases where the directiveReturn Directive requires Member States to postpone removal, such as when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement, Article 14(2)of the directiveReturn Directive requires Member States to provide the persons concerned with written confirmation that the return decision will temporarily not be enforced;

4 unchanged paragraphs

14. Stresses that a broad definition of the risk of absconding may lead to Member States refraining from granting a period for voluntary departure; recalls that lifting the voluntary departure period also leads to the imposition of an entry ban, which may further undermine voluntary departure; stresses the need for enhanced implementation of the current legal framework in order to step up successful voluntary returns;

15. Calls on the Member States and Frontex to share information and best practices on successful and dignified voluntary returns, and to provide operational assistance among Member States, on request, to strengthen and improve the operational effectiveness of voluntary returns;

16. Highlights the importance of providing individual case management and assistance, tailored to the individual circumstances and prospects of the returnee, with particular attention to unaccompanied minors;

Procedural safeguards

Change 15

Changed:17. Stresses that the directiveReturn Directive requires return and entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal to be individualised, clearly justified with reasons in law and in fact, issued in writing, and complete with information about available remedies and the relevant deadlines; stresses the importance of this information being provided in a language the person understands; expresses concerns regarding the lack of sufficient detail and justification in return decisions;

18. Takes the view that unaccompanied children should not be returned unless it can be demonstrated that it is in the child's best interests, and that children should be informed in a child-friendly manner and in a language that they understand about their rights and the remedies available to them;

Change 16

Changed:19. Recalls that the principle of non-refoulement is binding on Member States in all circumstances, including for return procedures not falling within the scope of application of the returnReturn directive;Directive;

20. Takes note of significant differences between Member States in the right to appeal, particularly regarding the type of appeal body and the appeal time-limits; stresses the need to guarantee the right to effective remedy, including by providing proper and accessible information and legal aid, including appropriate funds for the provision of legal assistance;

Change 17

Changed:21. Notes that the use of the optional clause in Article 2(2)(a) may lead to diminished implementation of safeguards at borders compared to the regular return procedure; urges Member States, therefore, to ensure procedural safeguards and respect for human rights and to apply the directiveReturn Directive to border situations;

Change 18

Changed:22. Highlights that the directiveReturn Directive allows for the temporary suspension of the enforcement of a removal, pending a review of a decision relating to return; underlines the need to ensure such suspensions in cases where there is a risk of refoulement; notes that in most countries, appeal against return is not automatically suspensive, which may diminish protection ; stresses that an automatic suspensive remedy would ensure that people are not returned before a final decision on the return procedure is taken; stresses that the best interests of the child must be the primary consideration for all decisions concerning children, including pending decisions relating to return;

Change 19

Changed:23. Recalls that Article 6(4) of the directiveReturn Directive provides Member States with the possibility to grant an autonomous residence permit on compassionate, humanitarian or other grounds to a third-country national staying irregularly on their territory; stresses the importance of successfully exhausting the options provided in the directiveReturn Directive to enforce return decisions, with an emphasis on voluntary return; notes, however, the limited use of Article 6(4) of the directiveReturn Directive and encourages Member States to expand the use of this clause; is concerned about the failure of Member States to issue a temporary residence permit where return has proven not to be possible, which often leaves unreturnable migrants unable to access their fundamental rights; underlines the fact that granting residence permits to individuals who cannot return to their country of origin could help to prevent protracted irregular stays and reduce vulnerability to labour exploitation and may facilitate individuals’ social inclusion and contribution to society; notes that this would also help to get people out of administrative limbo where they may be stuck; highlights, at the same time, that coordination within the Union is necessary in order to prevent onward irregular movements of persons subject to a return decision;

Entry bans

Change 20

Changed:24. Notes with concern the widespread automatic imposition of entry bans, which in some Member States are enforced alongside voluntary departure; stresses that this approach risks reducing incentives for voluntary return; calls on Member States to comply with the obligation of the directiveReturn Directive to consider withdrawing or suspending the ban in cases where a third-country national can demonstrate that he or she has left the territory of a Member State;

25. Notes that the situation of a person may vary during the period imposed by an entry ban and that a person may find themselves at risk of persecution in the country they have been returned to; calls on Member States to lift the entry ban on the basis of humanitarian considerations in such cases; reiterates that an entry ban should not be automatically applied, but should instead be based on an individual assessment; calls on the Member States to have effective procedures in place for requesting the lifting of an entry ban, in which an individual assessment is guaranteed, where the best interests of the child are the primary consideration and the right to family life, the right to family reunification and the principle of proportionality are respected;

Change 21

Changed:26. Notes that although the threat of imposition of an entry ban may serve as an incentive to leave a country within the time period of voluntary departure, once imposed, entry bans may reduce the incentive to comply with a return decision and may increase the risk of absconding; calls on Member States to consider timing the imposition of entry bans in order to successfully carry out return decisions; stresses that the directiveReturn Directive has rules allowing for entry bans to be lifted and calls on Member States to make use of these when necessary;

27. Stresses that entry bans may have disproportionate consequences in particular for families and children; welcomes the option introduced by some Member States to exempt children from the imposition of an entry ban, but stresses that children’s interests should also be a primary consideration when deciding on the (withdrawal of the) entry ban of their parents; calls on Member States to ensure family reunification and respect for the right to family life, including by applying this as a basis on which to refrain from imposing entry bans;

Detention and the risk of absconding

Change 22

Changed:28. Recalls that Article 3(7) of the directiveReturn Directive states that the 'risk of absconding' means the existence of reasons in an individual case which are based on objective criteria defined by law to believe that a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond; notes differences in the transposition into national legislations of the definition of the ‘risk of absconding’; highlights that in order to comply with Article 3(7) of the directive,Return Directive, due consideration needs to be given to the individual circumstances of the person involved when identifying a risk of absconding to justify detention;

29. Is concerned that the legislation of several Member States includes extensive and sometimes divergent lists of ‘objective criteria’ for defining the risk of absconding, among which general criteria such as a lack of money; is concerned that varying definitions of objective criteria for the assessment of the risk of absconding in the national legislation of Member States may result in inconsistent use of detention across the Union; regrets that these criteria are often applied in a more or less automatic way, while individual circumstances are of marginal consideration; stresses that this has led to detention being imposed in a systematic manner in many Member States; underlines the need for harmonisation in the definition and implementation of objective criteria to establish the risk of absconding;

30. Stresses that, in line with international human rights law, detention must remain a measure of last resort and be prescribed by law and be necessary, reasonable and proportional to the objectives to be achieved, that it must last for the shortest time possible and that the decision to impose detention always has to be based on an assessment of the individual circumstances, in which the interests of the individual concerned have been taken into account;

Change 23

Changed:31. Reiterates that longer detention does not automatically increase the chance of return and is generally more costly than alternatives to detention, and adds that states should not automatically resort to the maximum period permissible under the directive,Return Directive, and, furthermore, that they should ensure that all conditions for lawful detention are fulfilled throughout the detention period;

Change 24

Changed:32. Notes that the directiveReturn Directive establishes under which circumstances returnees may lawfully be detained; notes that detention is only possible if other sufficient but less coercive measures cannot be applied effectively in a specific case; expresses regret that in practice, very few viable alternatives to detention are developed and applied by Member States; calls on Member States, as a matter of urgency, to offer viable community-based alternatives to detention, which have a less negative impact on migrants, especially children and vulnerable people; calls on the Member States to report on the measures they take as an alternative to detention;

Change 25

Changed:33. ReallsRecalls that Member States should respect the mandates of relevant and competent national and international bodies, such as National Human Rights Institutions, ombudsman institutions and national preventive mechanisms, which conduct independent oversight of conditions of detention;

34. Notes that a significant number of children are still detained in the European Union as part of return procedures, agrees with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which has clarified that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests also in line with the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants of 19 September 2016; calls on the Member States to provide adequate, humane and non-custodial alternatives to detention;

35. Calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States and Frontex have monitoring bodies in place that are supported by a proper mandate, capacity and competence, a high level of independence and expertise, and transparent procedures; stresses that return monitoring should encompass all phases of return operations, with adequate resources; calls on the Commission and Member States to make use of existing independent monitoring bodies, such as national and international organisations and National Human Rights Institutions, by cooperating with or designating them as forced return monitoring systems; urges the Commission to ensure the establishment of a post-return monitoring mechanism to understand the fate of returned persons, where legally and practically possible, with particular attention for vulnerable groups, including unaccompanied minors and families; calls on the Member States to carry out proper handovers of child protection services among national authorities to ensure that returned children are taken care of and have access to national child protection services; highlights the need to follow up on the reintegration plans of returnees to ensure their effective implementation; calls on the Commission to facilitate the exchange of good practices between the Member States regarding post-return monitoring and to allocate sufficient funding for this purpose;

Change 26

Changed:36. Calls on the Member States to ensure the proper implementation of the directiveReturn Directive in all its aspects; calls on the Commission to continue monitoring this implementation and take action in the event of non-compliance;

°

° °

37. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.