amendment list, 1 December 2025
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
Document LIBE-AM-781174 · (COM(2025)0101 – 2025/0059(COD))
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Full text
Jump to an amendment (380)
- Amendment 826
- Amendment 827
- Amendment 828
- Amendment 829
- Amendment 830
- Amendment 831
- Amendment 832
- Amendment 833
- Amendment 834
- Amendment 835
- Amendment 836
- Amendment 837
- Amendment 838
- Amendment 839
- Amendment 840
- Amendment 841
- Amendment 842
- Amendment 843
- Amendment 844
- Amendment 845
- Amendment 846
- Amendment 847
- Amendment 848
- Amendment 849
- Amendment 850
- Amendment 851
- Amendment 852
- Amendment 853
- Amendment 854
- Amendment 855
- Amendment 856
- Amendment 857
- Amendment 858
- Amendment 859
- Amendment 860
- Amendment 861
- Amendment 862
- Amendment 863
- Amendment 864
- Amendment 865
- Amendment 866
- Amendment 867
- Amendment 868
- Amendment 869
- Amendment 870
- Amendment 871
- Amendment 872
- Amendment 873
- Amendment 874
- Amendment 875
- Amendment 876
- Amendment 877
- Amendment 878
- Amendment 879
- Amendment 880
- Amendment 881
- Amendment 882
- Amendment 883
- Amendment 884
- Amendment 885
- Amendment 886
- Amendment 887
- Amendment 888
- Amendment 889
- Amendment 890
- Amendment 891
- Amendment 892
- Amendment 893
- Amendment 894
- Amendment 895
- Amendment 896
- Amendment 897
- Amendment 898
- Amendment 899
- Amendment 900
- Amendment 901
- Amendment 902
- Amendment 903
- Amendment 904
- Amendment 905
- Amendment 906
- Amendment 907
- Amendment 908
- Amendment 909
- Amendment 910
- Amendment 911
- Amendment 912
- Amendment 913
- Amendment 914
- Amendment 915
- Amendment 916
- Amendment 917
- Amendment 918
- Amendment 919
- Amendment 920
- Amendment 921
- Amendment 922
- Amendment 923
- Amendment 924
- Amendment 925
- Amendment 926
- Amendment 927
- Amendment 928
- Amendment 929
- Amendment 930
- Amendment 931
- Amendment 932
- Amendment 933
- Amendment 934
- Amendment 935
- Amendment 936
- Amendment 937
- Amendment 938
- Amendment 939
- Amendment 940
- Amendment 941
- Amendment 942
- Amendment 943
- Amendment 944
- Amendment 945
- Amendment 946
- Amendment 947
- Amendment 948
- Amendment 949
- Amendment 950
- Amendment 951
- Amendment 952
- Amendment 953
- Amendment 954
- Amendment 955
- Amendment 956
- Amendment 957
- Amendment 958
- Amendment 959
- Amendment 960
- Amendment 961
- Amendment 962
- Amendment 963
- Amendment 964
- Amendment 965
- Amendment 966
- Amendment 967
- Amendment 968
- Amendment 969
- Amendment 970
- Amendment 971
- Amendment 972
- Amendment 973
- Amendment 974
- Amendment 975
- Amendment 976
- Amendment 977
- Amendment 978
- Amendment 979
- Amendment 980
- Amendment 981
- Amendment 982
- Amendment 983
- Amendment 984
- Amendment 985
- Amendment 986
- Amendment 987
- Amendment 988
- Amendment 989
- Amendment 990
- Amendment 991
- Amendment 992
- Amendment 993
- Amendment 994
- Amendment 995
- Amendment 996
- Amendment 997
- Amendment 998
- Amendment 999
- Amendment 1000
- Amendment 1001
- Amendment 1002
- Amendment 1003
- Amendment 1004
- Amendment 1005
- Amendment 1006
- Amendment 1007
- Amendment 1008
- Amendment 1009
- Amendment 1010
- Amendment 1011
- Amendment 1012
- Amendment 1013
- Amendment 1014
- Amendment 1015
- Amendment 1016
- Amendment 1017
- Amendment 1018
- Amendment 1019
- Amendment 1020
- Amendment 1021
- Amendment 1022
- Amendment 1023
- Amendment 1024
- Amendment 1025
- Amendment 1026
- Amendment 1027
- Amendment 1028
- Amendment 1029
- Amendment 1030
- Amendment 1031
- Amendment 1032
- Amendment 1033
- Amendment 1034
- Amendment 1035
- Amendment 1036
- Amendment 1037
- Amendment 1038
- Amendment 1039
- Amendment 1040
- Amendment 1041
- Amendment 1042
- Amendment 1043
- Amendment 1044
- Amendment 1045
- Amendment 1046
- Amendment 1047
- Amendment 1048
- Amendment 1049
- Amendment 1050
- Amendment 1051
- Amendment 1052
- Amendment 1053
- Amendment 1054
- Amendment 1055
- Amendment 1056
- Amendment 1057
- Amendment 1058
- Amendment 1059
- Amendment 1060
- Amendment 1061
- Amendment 1062
- Amendment 1063
- Amendment 1064
- Amendment 1065
- Amendment 1066
- Amendment 1067
- Amendment 1068
- Amendment 1069
- Amendment 1070
- Amendment 1071
- Amendment 1072
- Amendment 1073
- Amendment 1074
- Amendment 1075
- Amendment 1076
- Amendment 1077
- Amendment 1078
- Amendment 1079
- Amendment 1080
- Amendment 1081
- Amendment 1082
- Amendment 1083
- Amendment 1084
- Amendment 1085
- Amendment 1086
- Amendment 1087
- Amendment 1088
- Amendment 1089
- Amendment 1090
- Amendment 1091
- Amendment 1092
- Amendment 1093
- Amendment 1094
- Amendment 1095
- Amendment 1096
- Amendment 1097
- Amendment 1098
- Amendment 1099
- Amendment 1100
- Amendment 1101
- Amendment 1102
- Amendment 1103
- Amendment 1104
- Amendment 1105
- Amendment 1106
- Amendment 1107
- Amendment 1108
- Amendment 1109
- Amendment 1110
- Amendment 1111
- Amendment 1112
- Amendment 1113
- Amendment 1114
- Amendment 1115
- Amendment 1116
- Amendment 1117
- Amendment 1118
- Amendment 1119
- Amendment 1120
- Amendment 1121
- Amendment 1122
- Amendment 1123
- Amendment 1124
- Amendment 1125
- Amendment 1126
- Amendment 1127
- Amendment 1128
- Amendment 1129
- Amendment 1130
- Amendment 1131
- Amendment 1132
- Amendment 1133
- Amendment 1134
- Amendment 1135
- Amendment 1136
- Amendment 1137
- Amendment 1138
- Amendment 1139
- Amendment 1140
- Amendment 1141
- Amendment 1142
- Amendment 1143
- Amendment 1144
- Amendment 1145
- Amendment 1146
- Amendment 1147
- Amendment 1148
- Amendment 1149
- Amendment 1150
- Amendment 1151
- Amendment 1152
- Amendment 1153
- Amendment 1154
- Amendment 1155
- Amendment 1156
- Amendment 1157
- Amendment 1158
- Amendment 1159
- Amendment 1160
- Amendment 1161
- Amendment 1162
- Amendment 1163
- Amendment 1164
- Amendment 1165
- Amendment 1166
- Amendment 1167
- Amendment 1168
- Amendment 1169
- Amendment 1170
- Amendment 1171
- Amendment 1172
- Amendment 1173
- Amendment 1174
- Amendment 1175
- Amendment 1176
- Amendment 1177
- Amendment 1178
- Amendment 1179
- Amendment 1180
- Amendment 1181
- Amendment 1182
- Amendment 1183
- Amendment 1184
- Amendment 1185
- Amendment 1186
- Amendment 1187
- Amendment 1188
- Amendment 1189
- Amendment 1190
- Amendment 1191
- Amendment 1192
- Amendment 1193
- Amendment 1194
- Amendment 1195
- Amendment 1196
- Amendment 1197
- Amendment 1198
- Amendment 1199
- Amendment 1200
- Amendment 1201
- Amendment 1202
- Amendment 1203
- Amendment 1204
- Amendment 1205
Text 2,408 paragraphs
Amendment 826
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 9
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. The enforcing Member State may ask Frontex to support the enforcement of the return decision in accordance with Chapter II, Section 8, of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. When the enforcement of the return decision is not supported by Frontex, and upon request of the enforcing Member State, the issuing Member State shall compensate the enforcing Member State with an amount that shall not exceed the actual costs incurred by the enforcing Member State. The Commission shall adopt an implementing decision to determine the appropriate criteria for determining the amount and practical arrangements for the compensation. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 49(2). | 9. The enforcing Member State may ask Frontex to support the enforcement of the return decision in accordance with Chapter II, Section 8, of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. When the enforcement of the return decision is not supported by Frontex, the enforcing Member State shall be adequately compensated by Union funds in accordance with Article 9a. |
Or. en
Amendment 827
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Ana Miguel Pedro, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 9
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. The enforcing Member State may ask Frontex to support the enforcement of the return decision in accordance with Chapter II, Section 8, of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. When the enforcement of the return decision is not supported by Frontex, and upon request of the enforcing Member State, the issuing Member State shall compensate the enforcing Member State with an amount that shall not exceed the actual costs incurred by the enforcing Member State. The Commission shall adopt an implementing decision to determine the appropriate criteria for determining the amount and practical arrangements for the compensation. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 49(2). | 9. The enforcing Member State may ask Frontex to support the enforcement of the return decision in accordance with Chapter II, Section 8, of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. When the enforcement of the return decision is not supported by Frontex, and upon request of the enforcing Member State, the issuing Member State shall compensate the enforcing Member State with an amount that shall not exceed the actual costs incurred by the enforcing Member State. Depending on the individual circumstances and in accordance with national law, the third-country national concerned may be required to bear part or all of the costs related to the enforcement of the return decision. The Commission shall adopt an implementing decision to determine the appropriate criteria for determining the amount and practical arrangements for the compensation. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 49(2). |
Or. en
Read the rest (2,396 paragraphs)
Amendment 828
Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 9
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. The enforcing Member State may ask Frontex to support the enforcement of the return decision in accordance with Chapter II, Section 8, of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. When the enforcement of the return decision is not supported by Frontex, and upon request of the enforcing Member State, the issuing Member State shall compensate the enforcing Member State with an amount that shall not exceed the actual costs incurred by the enforcing Member State. The Commission shall adopt an implementing decision to determine the appropriate criteria for determining the amount and practical arrangements for the compensation. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 49(2). | 9. The enforcing Member State may ask Frontex to support the enforcement of the return decision in accordance with Chapter II, Section 8, of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. When the enforcement of the return decision is not supported by Frontex, and upon request of the enforcing Member State, the issuing Member State shall compensate the enforcing Member State with an amount when it is established that the Member State which issued the return decision has systematically or deliberately misused the return mechanism, resulting in an unjustified and disproportionate financial burden on another Member State. The Commission shall adopt an implementing decision to determine the appropriate criteria for determining the amount and practical arrangements for the compensation. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 49(2). |
Or. hr
Amendment 829
Ana Miguel Pedro
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 9 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9 a. Three years after the publication pursuant to paragraph 3, the Commission shall review the effectiveness of this Article and shall, where appropriate, propose any targeted amendments. to ensure effective returns |
Or. en
Amendment 830
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 9 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9 a. Six years after the publication pursuant to paragraph 3, the Commission shall review the effectiveness of this Article and shall, where appropriate, propose any targeted amendments to ensure effective returns. |
Or. en
Amendment 831
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 10
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. The Commission decision referred to in paragraph 2 shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
This deletion is for consistency with the changes made to paragraph 2.
Amendment 832
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 10
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. The Commission decision referred to in paragraph 2 shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. | 10. The Council decision referred to in paragraph 2 shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
Or. en
Amendment 833
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 9a | |
| Compensation mechanism | |
| 1. The costs incurred by Member States in relation to the return, removal and detention of illegally staying third-country nationals shall be compensated through a dedicated Union funding mechanism. | |
| 2. Member States may apply for compensation for: | |
| (a) the costs related to the return or removal of an illegally present third-country national, including but not limited to travel and transport costs, security costs and administrative costs; | |
| (b) the costs related to the detention of an illegally present third-country national, including but not limited to accommodation and basic living costs, security and supervision costs, healthcare costs, personnel costs, operational costs, administrative costs and legal costs; | |
| (c) the costs related to the accommodation of an illegally present third-country national, including but not limited to accommodation and facility costs, personnel costs, basic needs, healthcare costs and security costs; | |
| (d) the costs related to the implementation of agreements with third countries in accordance with Article 17; | |
| (e) any other relevant and duly justified costs directly linked to the implementation of this Regulation. | |
| 3. The Union budget allocated for this purpose shall ensure sufficient and predictable financing to support an effective return system. |
Or. en
Justification
The current migration crisis has arisen primarily from the EU’s failure to manage migration effectively. It is therefore reasonable that the EU should shoulder greater responsibility for the consequences faced by Member States. To this end, the establishment of a compensation fund is proposed, designed to support Member States in covering the costs associated with illegal migration. Financing for such a fund should not be a justification for the Union to increase it's overall budget. The financing of for this fund should primarily be funded by reallocating EU aid to third countries that do not cooperate with readmission. Other suitable financing would include budget transfers from less important priorities of the Union, such as climate and green funds, administration and communication.
Amendment 834
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article9a | |
| Procedural safeguards | |
| 1. Where the issuing Member State accepts the take back notification, the enforcing Member State shall, in writing, take a decision to transfer the third-country national concerned to the issuing Member State. | |
| 2. The transfer decision shall include information on the time limits for carrying out the transfer, and the obligation to comply with the decision. It shall be notified to the third-country national. The notification of these elements may be provided in a standardised format and may be machine translated, provided it is in a language the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. |
Or. en
Amendment 835
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article9b | |
| Detention for the purpose of transfer | |
| 1. Member States may detain a third-country national in order to secure a transfer procedure pursuant to this Chapter. | |
| 2. Detention for the purpose of transfer shall be for as short a period as possible and for no longer than the time reasonably necessary to complete the administrative procedures with due diligence until the transfer is carried out. The conditions of detention set out in Articles 34 and 35 shall apply. |
Or. en
Amendment 836
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 10 | deleted |
| Issuance of an entry ban | |
| 1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban when: | |
| a. the third-country national is subject to removal in accordance with Article 12; | |
| b. the obligation to return has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 13; | |
| c. the third-country national poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16. | |
| 2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, competent authorities shall determine whether or not a return decision shall be accompanied by an entry ban taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national. | |
| 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | |
| 4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and in compliance with the principle of proportionality and the rights of defence, and avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned. | |
| 5. Competent authorities may refrain from issuing an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons or if the third-country national duly cooperates with the competent authorities, included by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme. | |
| 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. | |
| 7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of a maximum of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. | |
| 8. The period of the entry ban shall start from the date on which the third-country national left the territory of the Member States. |
Or. en
Amendment 837
Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban when: | 1. In accordance to the principle of necessity and proportionality, return decisions may be accompanied by an entry ban when: |
Or. en
Amendment 838
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban when: | 1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban with a minimal duration of 10 years when: |
Or. en
Amendment 839
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban when: | 1. Return decisions may only be accompanied by an entry ban when: |
Or. en
Amendment 840
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban when: | 1. Return decisions shall be accompanied by an entry ban. |
Or. en
Justification
Entry bans should act as both a deterrent to illegal migration and also as a suitable punishment for illegally present third-country nationals. Therefore they must be applied to all return decisions.
Amendment 841
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the third-country national is subject to removal in accordance with Article 12; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 842
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the third-country national is subject to removal in accordance with Article 12; | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
As the use of forced returns is enhanced in this draft Regulation, linking a forced return with an automatic entry ban is unfair and disproportionate.
Amendment 843
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the third-country national is subject to removal in accordance with Article 12; | a. the third-country national is subject to removal ; |
Or. en
Amendment 844
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. the obligation to return has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 13; | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
As an obligation to return to one’s country of origin is not always dependent solely on the returnee, it would be unfair and disproportionate to impose an entry ban on those who cannot return because their country of origin will not accept them.
Amendment 845
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. the obligation to return has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 13; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 846
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. the obligation to return has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 13; | b. the obligation to return has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 13 where this is within the third-country national’s control; |
Or. en
Amendment 847
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. the obligation to return has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 13; | b. the obligation to leave the territory of the Member States has not been complied with within the time limits set in accordance with Article 7, paragraphs 1a-1c; |
Or. en
Amendment 848
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b a. there are other grounds indicated in national law. |
Or. en
Amendment 849
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. the third-country national poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 850
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. the third-country national poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16. | c. the third-country national poses a present and genuine threat to internal security. The security threat assessment cannot be based exclusively on the existence of a "security flag" in the Eurodac database pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1358. |
Or. en
Amendment 851
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. the third-country national poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16. | c. the third-country national poses a threat to public policy, internal security or international relations in accordance with Article 16. |
Or. en
Justification
See language of Article 6(2)(e) of the Schengen Borders Code - on the grounds to refuse entry to third-country nationals.
Amendment 852
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. the third-country national has been convicted for any offence punishable by a term of imprisonment. |
Or. en
Amendment 853
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. the third-country national fails to cooperate with the obligations as set out in Article 21. |
Or. en
Amendment 854
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. there are other grounds indicated in national law. |
Or. en
Amendment 855
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 a. Return decisions shall be accompanied by a life-long entry ban in cases where the third-country national poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16. |
Or. en
Amendment 856
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, competent authorities shall determine whether or not a return decision shall be accompanied by an entry ban taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national. | 2. In cases involving minors, return decisions shall not be accompanied by an entry ban. |
Or. en
Amendment 857
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, competent authorities shall determine whether or not a return decision shall be accompanied by an entry ban taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national. | 2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, the return decision shall be accompanied by an entry ban with a minimum duration of 5 years. |
Or. en
Amendment 858
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, competent authorities shall determine whether or not a return decision shall be accompanied by an entry ban taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national. | 2. Competent authorities shall determine the specific duration of the entry ban, taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national. |
Or. en
Amendment 859
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, competent authorities shall determine whether or not a return decision shall be accompanied by an entry ban taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national. | 2. Beyond the case referred to in paragraph 1,competent authorities may decide that a return decision shall be accompanied by an entry ban taking into account the individual circumstances of the case and the returnee, including whether the returnee deliberately obstructed the return process. |
Or. en
Justification
If a returnee deliberately obstructs the return process, then this is a factor to consider when deciding whether to impose an entry ban. Level of cooperation is much too vague.
Amendment 860
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, competent authorities shall determine whether or not a return decision shall be accompanied by an entry ban taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national. | 2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, competent authorities shall determine whether or not a return decision or a removal order shall be accompanied by an entry ban taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national. |
Or. en
Amendment 861
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, competent authorities shall determine whether or not a return decision shall be accompanied by an entry ban taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national. | 2. In cases other than those listed in paragraph 1, competent authorities may accompany a return decision or decision ordering the removal order with an entry ban taking into account relevant circumstances, in particular the level of cooperation of the third-country national. |
Or. en
Amendment 862
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. For this purpose, competent authorities may rely on standardised translation templates or machine-assisted translation tools, where appropriate. |
Or. en
Amendment 863
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or as part of the decision ordering the removal or separately in writing. The entry ban shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. Information of the effects of an entry ban may be notified in a generalised information sheet. |
Or. en
Amendment 864
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national. The notification may be provided in a standardised format and may be machine translated, provided it is in a language the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. |
Or. en
Amendment 865
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | 3. The entry ban shall be issued in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or is reasonably supposed to understand. |
Or. en
Justification
It's important to be clear when an entry ban could be issued. This decision should be in writing, in a language the TCN understands, see Article 8(2) APR.
Amendment 866
Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands |
Or. en
Amendment 867
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands. |
Or. en
Amendment 868
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision or separately in writing. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | 3. The entry ban shall be issued as part of the return decision. It shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. |
Or. en
Amendment 869
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and in compliance with the principle of proportionality and the rights of defence, and avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned. | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
This provision is without justification. Entry bans should accompany a written return decision and not exist in a legal vacuum. Voluntary departure should always be prioritised but not with the imposition of an entry ban where there is no return decision. It also not clear that the legal basis covers entry bans not linked to repatriation or removal.
Amendment 870
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and in compliance with the principle of proportionality and the rights of defence, and avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 871
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and in compliance with the principle of proportionality and the rights of defence, and avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned. | 4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399. |
Or. en
Amendment 872
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and in compliance with the principle of proportionality and the rights of defence, and avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned. | 4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 and avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned. |
Or. en
Amendment 873
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and in compliance with the principle of proportionality and the rights of defence, and avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned. | 4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, and avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned. |
Or. en
Amendment 874
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and in compliance with the principle of proportionality and the rights of defence, and avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned. | 4. Competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a return decision to a third-country national who has been illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399. The entry ban in these cases may be imposed and notified after the third-country national has departed from the territory of the Member States avoiding as much as possible to postpone the departure of the third-country national concerned. |
Or. en
Amendment 875
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 a. Where an illegally staying third-country national departs from the territory of the Member States before a return decision is issued, the competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing such a return decision. |
Or. en
Amendment 876
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 b. Taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, Member States may impose an entry ban after the third-country national has departed from the territory. |
Or. en
Amendment 877
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 b. Where the grounds for issuing an entry ban have arisen after a return decision is issued, the competent authorities may impose an entry ban without issuing a new return decision. |
Or. en
Amendment 878
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Competent authorities may refrain from issuing an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons or if the third-country national duly cooperates with the competent authorities, included by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 879
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Competent authorities may refrain from issuing an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons or if the third-country national duly cooperates with the competent authorities, included by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 880
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Competent authorities may refrain from issuing an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons or if the third-country national duly cooperates with the competent authorities, included by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme. | 5. Competent authorities may refrain from issuing an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons, if the third-country national is a victim of human trafficking, or if the third-country national duly cooperates with the competent authorities, including by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme. |
Or. en
Amendment 881
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Competent authorities may refrain from issuing an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons or if the third-country national duly cooperates with the competent authorities, included by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme. | 5. Competent authorities may refrain from issuing an entry ban if the third-country national duly cooperates with the competent authorities, included by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme. |
Or. fr
Amendment 882
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Competent authorities may refrain from issuing an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons or if the third-country national duly cooperates with the competent authorities, included by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme. | 5. Competent authorities shall not issue an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons, in cases involving minors or if the third-country national is participating in a return and reintegration programme. |
Or. en
Amendment 883
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Competent authorities may refrain from issuing an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons or if the third-country national duly cooperates with the competent authorities, included by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme. | 5. Competent authorities may, in accordance with national law, refrain from issuing an entry ban or issue an entry ban with a lower minimal duration in exceptional cases and in duly justified circumstances, in particular for humanitarian reasons. |
Or. en
Amendment 884
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Competent authorities may refrain from issuing an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons or if the third-country national duly cooperates with the competent authorities, included by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme. | 5. Competent authorities may decide not to issue an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons or if the returnee duly cooperates with the return authorities, included by enrolling in a return and reintegration programme. |
Or. en
Amendment 885
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5 a. Member States may provide in their national law for the possibility to reduce the duration of an entry ban by a maximum of half its initial duration, where the third-country national has voluntarily and fully complied with the return decision within the departure period specified therein. |
Or. en
Amendment 886
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 887
Ana Miguel Pedro
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. | 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of ten years. In doing so, competent authorities may consider the nature and seriousness of the conduct leading to the illegal stay or to previous enforcement measures, including cases in which the third-country national departed voluntarily after an unlawful stay exceeding 180 days but below one year, for which an entry ban of up to three years may be appropriate. Without prejudice to Article 16(3)(a), an entry ban may, based on an individual assessment and duly substantiated reasons, be issued for a maximum of twenty years where such duration is necessary further to prevent re-entry into the territory of the Member States. In cases involving conduct that constitutes a severe, demonstrable and continuing threat to public security or national security, competent authorities may, on the basis of a proportionate assessment of the risk posed, impose an entry ban of up to twenty years or, in exceptional and duly justified circumstances relating to the gravity and persistence of that threat, an entry ban of indefinite duration. |
Or. en
Amendment 888
Rasa Juknevičienė
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. | 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. Without prejudice to Article 16(3)(a), an entry ban may be issued for a maximum of 20 years with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of the competent authorities for why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. |
Or. en
Justification
This amendment aims to ensure that Member States have the ability to issue an entry ban of an indefinite duration in cases where a third-country national poses a serious and persistent security threat. While Articles 10(6) and 16(3) limit the maximum duration of an entry ban, certain cases involving high-risk individuals require a more robust and long-term preventive response.Allowing an entry ban without a fixed end date—where duly justified and proportionate—provides Member States with the necessary flexibility to address situations in which the security risk is not likely to diminish within a predictable timeframe.The possibility to impose an indefinite entry ban remains strictly conditional on an individualised assessment, respect for fundamental rights and safeguards, and periodic review under national law to ensure that the measure does not persist longer than the underlying threat. This approach strengthens the protection of internal security while maintaining full compliance with the principles of necessity and proportionality.
Amendment 889
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. | 6. Without prejudice to Article 16(3)(a), the length of the entry ban shall be determined for a maximum of 40 years. |
| Member States are encouraged to implement in national law minimum entry bans that correlate to the threat of individual, in particular: |
Or. en
Amendment 890
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. | 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined for 10 years. In justified cases, taking into account security of the Member State, an entry ban may be imposed for longer period, as determined in national law. |
Or. en
Amendment 891
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. | 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a minimum of 7 years to a maximum of lifetime duration. |
Or. en
Amendment 892
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. | 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case up to an initial maximum of 5 years. |
Or. en
Justification
The maximum duration in paragraph 6 is an initial maximum. 10 years is clearly disproportionate.
Amendment 893
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. | 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case and may apply for life. |
Or. fr
Amendment 894
Milan Uhrík
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. | 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a minimum of 20 years. |
Or. en
Amendment 895
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. | 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 5 years. |
Or. en
Amendment 896
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case for a maximum of 10 years. | 6. The length of the entry ban shall be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of the individual case. |
Or. en
Amendment 897
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) the third-country national has not complied with the obligation to return within the time limits determined pursuant to Article 12, Member States are may determine an entry ban of at least five years; | |
| (b) the third-country national is subject to removal under Article 13, Member States may determine an entry ban for a of at least of 20 years; | |
| (c) the third-country national poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16, Member States may determine an entry ban of at least 40 years; | |
| (d) the third-country national falls within the scope of Directive 2017/541 of the European Parliament or of the Council or has committed war crimes as defined in Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998, Member States may determine an entry ban of at least 80 years; | |
| (e) points (a) through (d) do not prevent Member States from issuing an indefinete entry ban in any category in order to protet public policy, public security or national security. |
Or. en
Amendment 898
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 a. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, third-country nationals who pose a security risk in accordance with Article 16 shall be issued with a lifetime entry ban. |
Or. en
Amendment 899
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of a maximum of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 900
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of a maximum of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. | 7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of a maximum of 5 years up to an overall maximum of 15 years. Such extension shall by written decision amenable to judicial review be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. Such an extension shall be notified to the third-country national in accordance with paragraph 2. |
Or. en
Justification
As the initial entry ban will be linked to a return decision, the right to an effective remedy can be sought against the return decision. Where an entry ban is extended, the link with the return decision is broken and a fresh written decision is required.
Amendment 901
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of a maximum of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. | 7. The duration of the entry ban may be extended to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. |
Or. en
Amendment 902
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of a maximum of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. | 7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by a period of up to five years if the third-country national represents a serious genuine and present threat to internal security. Such extension and its duration shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. |
Or. en
Amendment 903
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of a maximum of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. | 7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 1 and 2 may be extended by successive periods of a maximum of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. |
Or. en
Amendment 904
Milan Uhrík
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of a maximum of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. | 7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of a minimum of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. |
Or. en
Amendment 905
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of a maximum of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of competent authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. | 7. The duration of the entry ban pursuant to paragraph 6 may be extended by successive periods of 5 years. Such extension shall be based on an individual assessment with due regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular any duly substantiated reasons of national authorities why it is necessary to further prevent the third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. |
Or. fr
Amendment 906
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 7 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 a. Member States may impose a permanent entry ban on persons falling within the scope of Article 16(1), where this is justified and proportionate in view of the security risk posed by the third-country national |
Or. en
Amendment 907
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 8
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. The period of the entry ban shall start from the date on which the third-country national left the territory of the Member States. | 8. The period of the entry ban shall start from the date on which the third-country national leaves the territory of the Member States. |
Or. en
Amendment 908
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 8
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. The period of the entry ban shall start from the date on which the third-country national left the territory of the Member States. | 8. The period of the entry ban shall start from the date on which the returnee left the territory of the Member States. |
Or. en
Amendment 909
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 11 | deleted |
| Withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban | |
| 1. An entry ban may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened where the third-country national: | |
| a. demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision; | |
| b. has not already been the subject of a return decision or removal order in the past; | |
| c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force. | |
| 2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances. | |
| 3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban. |
Or. en
Justification
This is now addressed in article 10.
Amendment 910
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban | Withdrawal or shortening of the duration of an entry ban |
Or. en
Amendment 911
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. An entry ban may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened where the third-country national: | 1. A Member State may withdraw, suspend or shorten the duration of an entry ban at any time based on an individual assessment of the situation of the third-country national. That asssessment should take into account the following: |
Or. en
Amendment 912
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. An entry ban may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened where the third-country national: | 1. An entry ban may be withdrawn or its duration shortened by the issuing Member State only in cases where the third-country national demonstrates that he or she returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision. |
Or. en
Amendment 913
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. An entry ban may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened where the third-country national: | 1. An entry ban may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened by the issuing Member State where the third-country national demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision. |
Or. en
Amendment 914
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. An entry ban may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened where the third-country national: | 1. An entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10(1)(a) or (b) shall be withdrawn where the third-country national demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision. |
Or. en
Amendment 915
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 916
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 917
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 918
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. demonstrates that he or she has returned voluntarily in compliance with a return decision; | a. whether he or she has accepted the obligation to leave and has left in compliance with a return decision; |
Or. en
Justification
Accepted return rather than voluntary return. The decision to leave is not voluntary - it is compliance with an obligation.
Amendment 919
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. has not already been the subject of a return decision or removal order in the past; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 920
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. has not already been the subject of a return decision or removal order in the past; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 921
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Rasa Juknevičienė
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. has not already been the subject of a return decision or removal order in the past; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 922
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. has not already been the subject of a return decision or removal order in the past; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 923
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. has not already been the subject of a return decision or removal order in the past; | b. whether he or she has already been the subject of a return decision order in the past; |
Or. en
Justification
The removal order is an extension of the return decision. Including both here is confusing, as if a returnee might have a removal order without a return decision.
Amendment 924
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b a. takes in charge the payment of return costs. |
Or. en
Amendment 925
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 926
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 927
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 928
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 929
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 930
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. has not entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban was still in force. | c. whether he or she has entered the territory of a Member State while an entry ban, of which he or she was aware, was still in force. |
Or. en
Justification
If the person was not aware that an entry ban was in place, this cannot be held against her.
Amendment 931
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons justifying a withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the entry ban. |
Or. en
Justification
All the elements that might impact on a decision to withdraw, suspend or shorten an entry ban should be taken into account in order for Member States’ authorities to take proportionate decisions in relation to entry bans
Amendment 932
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances. | deleted |
Or. fr
Amendment 933
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Rasa Juknevičienė
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 934
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances. | 2. Where an entry ban is withdrawn or suspended , in accordance with paragraph 1, that Member State shall ensure that the associated alert in the Schengen Information System is deleted immediately pursuant to Article 40 of Regulation 2018/1861. |
Or. en
Justification
With the increased prevalence of entry bans, it is essential to ensure that SIS alerts on entry bans are removed as soon as an entry ban is suspended or withdrawn.
Amendment 935
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances. | 2. The competent authority may at their discretion withdraw, suspend or shorten the duration of an entry ban in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances. |
Or. en
Amendment 936
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances. | 2. An entry ban shall also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened where necessary in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances. |
Or. en
Amendment 937
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances. | 2. An entry ban, on well-grounded request of the third-country national, may be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases. |
Or. en
Amendment 938
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn, suspended or its duration shortened in justified individual cases, including for humanitarian reasons, taking into account all relevant circumstances. | 2. An entry ban may also be withdrawn or its duration shortened in duly justified and exceptional individual cases, with the exception of third-country nationals listed in paragraph 2a. |
Or. en
Amendment 939
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. An entry ban shall not be withdrawn or its duration shortened where the third-country national: | |
| a. was subject to a lifetime entry ban in accordance with Article 10(6); | |
| b. poses, or is believed to reasonably pose, a threat to national security or public security; |
Or. en
Amendment 940
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. Third-country nationals falling under the scope of Article 16, paragraph 1, shall not benefit from the withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban. |
Or. en
Amendment 941
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 942
Rasa Juknevičienė
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban. | 3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban. A third-country national who has been issued an entry ban exceeding 10 years pursuant to Article 10(6) or Article 16(3)(a) may, five years after his or her departure from the Member States, request the issuing Member State to review whether the entry ban should be withdrawn, suspended or shortened, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including, where applicable, whether the person continues to pose a security risk under Article 16 and whether the measure remains necessary to prevent entry into the territory of the Member States. Any such request shall be well-grounded. |
Or. en
Justification
This amendment aims to ensure that Member States have the ability to issue an entry ban of an indefinite duration in cases where a third-country national poses a serious and persistent security threat. While Articles 10(6) and 16(3) limit the maximum duration of an entry ban, certain cases involving high-risk individuals require a more robust and long-term preventive response.Allowing an entry ban without a fixed end date—where duly justified and proportionate—provides Member States with the necessary flexibility to address situations in which the security risk is not likely to diminish within a predictable timeframe.The possibility to impose an indefinite entry ban remains strictly conditional on an individualised assessment, respect for fundamental rights and safeguards, and periodic review under national law to ensure that the measure does not persist longer than the underlying threat. This approach strengthens the protection of internal security while maintaining full compliance with the principles of necessity and proportionality.
Amendment 943
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban. | 3. The third-country national may submit a well-grounded request for withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban, provided that the third-country national has complied with the return decision, without prejudice to paragraph 4, and the third-country national, was issued an entry ban that exceeds 10 years in accordance with Article 10(6) or Article 16(3)(a). The decision shall have due regard to all relevant circumstances, including, where relevant, whether the third-country national was a security risk under Article 16, and whether the entry ban remains necessary to further prevent that third-country national from entering the territory of the Member States. |
Or. en
Amendment 944
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban. | 3. The third-country national may submit a well-substantiated request in writing in the language of the issuing Member State for the withdrawal or shortening of the duration of an entry ban. Third-country nationals may be entitled, on a single occasion only, to request the withdrawal of an entry ban or the shortening of its duration. Subsequent requests for the same purpose shall be inadmissible. |
Or. en
Amendment 945
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban. | 3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban, including after leaving the territory of the issuing Member State. |
Or. en
Amendment 946
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The third-country national shall be afforded the possibility to request such withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban. | 3. The third-country national may be afforded the possibility to request such shortening of the duration of an entry ban. |
Or. fr
Amendment 947
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Member States may subject the withdrawal of an entry ban to: | |
| i) the reimbursement of the costs of the removal of the third-country national | |
| ii) a requirement to apply for a visa, especially in cases where the third-country previously benefited from visa free access, which is granted conditionally on the advance payment of a visa bond which is at least equivalent to the previous cost of the third-country national's removal. The conditions for payment, holding, forfeiture and refund of the bond shall be determined under national law. Any subsequent violation of national or immigration rules, including illegal entry, overstaying, or criminal conduct, shall result in the automatic forfeiture of the bond. |
Or. en
Amendment 948
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. The procedure for the withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban shall be set out in national law and include an accessible procedure for third-country nationals who have already left the territory of the EU. This procedure shall be communicated to the third-country national in writing, in simple and accessible language and in a language which the third-country national understands, including through written or oral translation and interpretation as necessary. |
Or. en
Amendment 949
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Member States shall lay down in national law the procedure for the withdrawal, suspension, or shortening the duration of an entry ban. The procedure shall be open to third-country nationals who have already left the territory of the Union. |
Or. en
Justification
To allow third-country nationals to understand rules regarding entry bans and the shortening, suspension or withdrawal of such bans, it is necessary to have a procedure at national level.
Amendment 950
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. The procedure for the withdrawal, suspension or shortening of the duration of an entry ban shall be set out in national law. |
Or. en
Amendment 951
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Chapter II – Section 4 – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 Enforcement of return | 4 Voluntary return and fundamental rights monitoring |
Or. en
Amendment 952
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 12 | deleted |
| Removal | |
| 1. The third-country national subject to a return decision shall be removed when: | |
| a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process; | |
| b. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13; | |
| c. the third-country national falls within the scope of Article 16; | |
| d. the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13. | |
| 2. Member States' competent authorities may issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal. | |
| 3. The competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return. They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. | |
| 4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law respecting fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned. | |
| 5. In carrying out removals by air, Member States shall take into account the common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2004/573/EC26 . | |
| 6. In duly justified cases and when the third-country national is clearly cooperating, competent authorities may decide to indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States in accordance with Article 13. In such cases, competent authorities shall closely monitor the compliance of the third-country national, including by organising transport assistance to the relevant point of departure from the Union. | |
| 26 Council Decision 2004/573/EC of 29 April 2004 on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of two or more Member States, of third-country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 28, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2004/573/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 953
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 12 | deleted |
| Removal | |
| 1. The third-country national subject to a return decision shall be removed when: | |
| a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process; | |
| b. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13; | |
| c. the third-country national falls within the scope of Article 16; | |
| d. the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13. | |
| 2. Member States' competent authorities may issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal. | |
| 3. The competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return. They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. | |
| 4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law respecting fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned. | |
| 5. In carrying out removals by air, Member States shall take into account the common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2004/573/EC26 . | |
| 6. In duly justified cases and when the third-country national is clearly cooperating, competent authorities may decide to indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States in accordance with Article 13. In such cases, competent authorities shall closely monitor the compliance of the third-country national, including by organising transport assistance to the relevant point of departure from the Union. | |
| 26 Council Decision 2004/573/EC of 29 April 2004 on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of two or more Member States, of third-country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 28, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2004/573/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 954
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 12 | deleted |
| Removal | |
| 1. The third-country national subject to a return decision shall be removed when: | |
| a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process; | |
| b. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13; | |
| c. the third-country national falls within the scope of Article 16; | |
| d. the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13. | |
| 2. Member States' competent authorities may issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal. | |
| 3. The competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return. They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. | |
| 4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law respecting fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned. | |
| 5. In carrying out removals by air, Member States shall take into account the common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2004/573/EC26 . | |
| 6. In duly justified cases and when the third-country national is clearly cooperating, competent authorities may decide to indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States in accordance with Article 13. In such cases, competent authorities shall closely monitor the compliance of the third-country national, including by organising transport assistance to the relevant point of departure from the Union. | |
| 26 Council Decision 2004/573/EC of 29 April 2004 on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of two or more Member States, of third-country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 28, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2004/573/oj). |
Or. en
Justification
Retabled as article 13a.
Amendment 955
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph -1 (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| -1. This Article shall apply where a third-country national has not complied with the obligation to return within the period for voluntary departure set out in the return decision pursuant to Article 7, or where that decision imposes an obligation to return immediately. |
Or. en
Justification
To ensure legal certainty and reduce administrative burdens, we propose the following structure.
- Compliance: An individual who adheres to the obligation to leave fulfills the terms of the return decision (art 7).
- Non-compliance: An individual who does not depart becomes, by that fact alone, subject to removal (art 12). This status directly enables the application of detention or an alternative measure.
- Overriding Principle: Notwithstanding the application of such measures, the individual is not precluded from complying with the return decision at any time.
Amendment 956
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The third-country national subject to a return decision shall be removed when: | deleted |
| a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process; | |
| b. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13; | |
| c. the third-country national falls within the scope of Article 16; | |
| d. the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13. |
Or. en
Amendment 957
Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Irena Joveva
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 958
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Rasa Juknevičienė
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process; | a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities, in accordance with the obligations laid down in Article 21, during the return process; |
Or. en
Amendment 959
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process; | a. the third-country national has not complied with the obligation to leave the territory in accordance with Article 7; |
Or. en
Amendment 960
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process; | a. the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities; |
Or. en
Amendment 961
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a a. the third-country national does not cooperate with the authorities; |
Or. en
Amendment 962
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 963
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13; | b. the third-country national departs from the territory of the Member State and enters into another Member State, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13; |
Or. en
Amendment 964
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13. | d. the third-country national moves to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 7; |
Or. en
Amendment 965
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d a. where the competent authorities consider the removal necessary and proportionate, in accordance with national law, for reasons other than those listed in points (a) to (d). |
Or. en
Amendment 966
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d a. the third-country national has provided false, misleading or intentionally misrepresented his or her age to the competent authorities; |
Or. en
Amendment 967
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d a. national law provides grounds to remove the third-country national for other reasons than subparagraph (a) to (d). |
Or. en
Amendment 968
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d a. e. there are other grounds in national law |
Or. en
Amendment 969
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d b. the third-country national has not complied with the obligation to return within the period for voluntary departure set out in the return decision; |
Or. en
Amendment 970
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d b. the Member State deems it necessary, as provided for in national law, to remove the third-country national for other reasons than (a) to (d). |
Or. en
Amendment 971
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d c. Where a country of return has not previously been determined, the Member State shall determine one or more countries of return as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 3, prior to carrying out the removal. |
Or. en
Amendment 972
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d c. the Member State finds it necessary, as provided for in national law, to remove the third-country national for reasons other than those listed in subparagraph (a) to (f). |
Or. en
Amendment 973
Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Irena Joveva, Abir Al-Sahlani
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 a. The third-country national subject to a return decision may be removed when: | |
| (a) the third-country national is refusing to cooperate with the authorities during the return process; |
Or. en
Amendment 974
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Member States' competent authorities may issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal. | 2. A removal order shall be issued by the competent authorities to any third-country national who is subject to removal. The removal order shall be issued in writing in the same decision as the return decision or as a separate administrative or judicial decision. |
Or. en
Amendment 975
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Member States' competent authorities may issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal. | 2. Member States' competent authorities may issue a decision on removal together with a return decision in a single administrative or judicial decision or act or in a separate administrative or judicial act. |
Or. en
Amendment 976
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. Where a competent authority issues a decision ordering the removal, and where the country of return has not previously been determined, the decision ordering the removal shall state one or more countries of return as referred to in Article 4(3). |
Or. en
Amendment 977
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 b. Where a decision ordering the removal is issued, it shall give reasons in fact and in law. The decision ordering the removal shall be notified to the third-country national as soon as possible in accordance with national law of the Member State concerned. |
Or. en
Amendment 978
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 c. Where a decision ordering the removal is issued, the third-country national shall, upon request, be provided with a written or oral translation of the main elements of the decision ordering the removal, in a language the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. Member States may use generalised information sheets or translations, including machine-generated translations. |
Or. en
Amendment 979
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return. They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 980
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return. They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 981
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return. They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. | 3. When the third country national indicates, or the authorities of the Member State become aware of, relevant indications that the removal would breach the principle of non-refoulement, the Member State shall refer the third-country national to the appropriate procedure (including the asylum procedure in reference to Regulation 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU) or otherwise consider whether the removal is in compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant information concerning their own personal circumstances in order to substantiate their claim that the removal would breach the principle of non-refoulement. Member States may rely on or take into consideration any previous assessment of the risk of non-refoulement. A new assessment consideration of the risk of refoulement shall only be made if new, relevant information has been substantiated. |
Or. en
Amendment 982
Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return. They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. | 3. The competent authorities shall comply with the principle of non-refoulement when removing third-country nationals. If a third-country national or the authorities of a Member State indicate that the removal would breach the principle of non-refoulement, the Member State shall refer the third-country national concerned to the appropriate asylum procedure provided under the APR or national law, or otherwise consider whether removal is in compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. Member States may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the return procedure, and, where relevant, asylum procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. |
Or. en
Amendment 983
Irena Joveva
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return. They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. | 3. The competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return. They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. Removal shall not be carried out if the individual assessment reveals that the third-country national is a vulnerable person whose physical or mental health would be seriously endangered or the principle of non-refoulement would be breached by the enforcement of the removal. |
Or. en
Amendment 984
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return. They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. | 3. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances, proving a risk of non-refoulement. |
Or. en
Amendment 985
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return. They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the procedure. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. | 3. When the competent authorities have to assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return in accordance with paragraph 3b, they may rely on an existing assessment of all relevant circumstances. Relevant changes in circumstances and new elements put forward by the third country national evidencing a risk shall, when applicable be examined. The third-country national concerned shall bring forward as soon as possible any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. Member States may dismiss elements concerning the personal circumstances of the third country national on the basis of the fact that they could have been presented earlier. |
Or. en
Amendment 986
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Without prejudice to paragraph 3b, once a removal date has been set, Member States may, in accordance with national law, establish a deadline for the submission of new elements concerning the third-country national's personal circumstances. |
Or. en
Amendment 987
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Member States may decide that the principle of non-refoulement may be assessed by an authority other than the competent authority that is issuing or enforcing the return decision. |
Or. en
Amendment 988
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 b. The obligation to assess the risk of a potential breach of the principle of non-refoulement under paragraph 3 shall be considered fulfilled where: | |
| (a) a thorough examination of such risk was conducted in the context of a final decision in an asylum procedure; and | |
| (b) the country to which the third-country national is to be returned is the same country that was the subject of that examination; and | |
| (c) the competent authorities have verified that the general situation in the country of return has not substantially deteriorated since that final decision was taken. |
Or. en
Amendment 989
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law respecting fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned. | 4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law. |
Or. en
Amendment 990
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law respecting fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned. | 4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law respecting fundamental rights. |
Or. en
Amendment 991
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law respecting fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned. | 4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned. |
Or. en
Amendment 992
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law respecting fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned. | 4. Coercive measures taken to ensure removal shall be necessary and proportionate, including with regard to the use of force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law respecting fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned. |
Or. fr
Amendment 993
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. In duly justified cases and when the third-country national is clearly cooperating, competent authorities may decide to indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States in accordance with Article 13. In such cases, competent authorities shall closely monitor the compliance of the third-country national, including by organising transport assistance to the relevant point of departure from the Union. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 994
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. In duly justified cases and when the third-country national is clearly cooperating, competent authorities may decide to indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States in accordance with Article 13. In such cases, competent authorities shall closely monitor the compliance of the third-country national, including by organising transport assistance to the relevant point of departure from the Union. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 995
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. In duly justified cases and when the third-country national is clearly cooperating, competent authorities may decide to indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States in accordance with Article 13. In such cases, competent authorities shall closely monitor the compliance of the third-country national, including by organising transport assistance to the relevant point of departure from the Union. | 6. In duly justified cases and when the third-country national is clearly cooperating, national authorities may decide to indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States in accordance with Article 13, informing the third-country national that they will be subject to sanctions and forced removal in the event that they fail to comply with that deadline. In such cases, national authorities shall closely monitor the compliance of the third-country national, including by organising transport assistance to the relevant point of departure from the Union. |
Or. fr
Amendment 996
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. In duly justified cases and when the third-country national is clearly cooperating, competent authorities may decide to indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States in accordance with Article 13. In such cases, competent authorities shall closely monitor the compliance of the third-country national, including by organising transport assistance to the relevant point of departure from the Union. | 6. In duly justified cases and when the third-country national is clearly cooperating, and excluding third-country nationals falling under Article 16, competent authorities may decide to indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States in accordance with Article 13. In such cases, competent authorities shall closely monitor the compliance of the third-country national, including by organising transport assistance to the relevant point of departure from the Union. |
Or. en
Amendment 997
Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 a. Removal orders shall not be executed for the duration of the appeal procedure to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) before a competent judicial authority as set out in Article 27 |
Or. en
Amendment 998
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 a. Nothing in this Article shall prevent a third-country national from complying with the obligation to return at any point in time. |
Or. en
Justification
This provision clarifies that, notwithstanding the initiation of removal procedures under this Article, the third-country national's underlying obligation to return remains. It ensures legal certainty by confirming that the individual retains the ability to comply voluntarily with the return decision at any stage, which is consistent with the principle of favoring voluntary compliance over coercive measures.
Amendment 999
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 b. Where a third-country national is subject to removal, Member States may keep that person in detention or apply one or more of the measures provided for in Article 31. |
Or. en
Amendment 1000
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 13 | deleted |
| Voluntary return | |
| 1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier. | |
| 2. The date referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision. | |
| 3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. | |
| 4. The third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States by the date determined pursuant to paragraph 1. If not, the third-country national shall be subject of removal in accordance with Article 12. |
Or. en
Amendment 1001
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 13 | deleted |
| Voluntary return | |
| 1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier. | |
| 2. The date referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision. | |
| 3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. | |
| 4. The third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States by the date determined pursuant to paragraph 1. If not, the third-country national shall be subject of removal in accordance with Article 12. |
Or. en
Amendment 1002
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Voluntary return | Voluntary departure |
Or. en
Amendment 1003
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Voluntary return | Voluntary departure |
Or. en
Amendment 1004
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Voluntary return | Accepted return |
Or. en
Amendment 1005
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Ana Miguel Pedro, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier. | 1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier. Voluntary departure is a binding obligation and any failure to comply shall result in the immediate initiation of forced removal procedures. |
Or. en
Amendment 1006
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier. | 1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States, shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier and shall set out the consequences of failing to comply with the deadline for leaving the territory. |
Or. fr
Amendment 1007
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier. | 1. Member States shall provide for the effective possibility for third country nationals who are staying irregularly to voluntarily leave the Member State and ensure that the return has been carried out voluntarily, including absence of any physical, psychological, or material pressure following an examination of the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned. |
Or. en
Amendment 1008
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier. | 1. The return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave at any time before that date |
Or. en
Amendment 1009
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier. | 1. Except where a returnee is considered to pose a risk to internal security pursuant to Article 16, each return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national should leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier. |
Or. en
Justification
Unless Article 16 is applied, each return decision should indicate a period for voluntary leave. The other conditions for the application of Article 12/13 depend on the behaviour of the returnee, which cannot be assessed at the moment of issuing the return decision.
Amendment 1010
Irena Joveva
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier. | 1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall state a departure period by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier. |
Or. en
Amendment 1011
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The date referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision. | 2. The date referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision and may indicate that the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States immediately. The departure period may be further specified in national law. |
Or. en
Amendment 1012
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The date referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision. | 2. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 14 days from the date of notification of the return decision. |
Or. en
Amendment 1013
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The date referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision. | 2. The date by which the third-country national may leave shall not be less than 6 months from the date of notification of the return decision. |
Or. en
Amendment 1014
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The date referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision. | 2. The date referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not be shorter than 7 days and shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision. |
Or. en
Justification
A reasonable minimum period during which the TCN can prepare for leaving the Union should be mandatory.
Amendment 1015
Irena Joveva
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The date referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision. | 2. The departure period referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The departure period by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision. |
Or. en
Amendment 1016
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The date referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision. | 2. The date referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall be 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision. |
Or. en
Amendment 1017
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. | deleted |
Or. fr
Amendment 1018
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1019
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. | 3. Upon a duly substantiated request of the third country national, Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 |
Or. en
Amendment 1020
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. | 3. Member States may extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall not exceed 30 days and shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. |
Or. en
Amendment 1021
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. | 3. Member States may extend the departure period pursuant to with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case, in particular participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. Member states may shorten the departure period pursuant to paragraph 1a in case of noncompliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. |
Or. en
Amendment 1022
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. | 3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. |
Or. en
Amendment 1023
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. | 3. Member States shall provide for a longer period or extend the voluntary period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as social links, family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and any specific needs of vulnerable persons including the assessment of health and medical needs. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. |
Or. en
Amendment 1024
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. | 3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as the length of stay, family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. |
Or. en
Amendment 1025
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States may provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. | 3. Member States shall provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 where necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, such as family links, the existence of children attending school, participation in a programme supporting return and reintegration pursuant to Article 46(3) and compliance with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21. Any extension of the period to leave shall be provided in writing to the third-country national. |
Or. en
Amendment 1026
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Where a third-country national poses a genuine and present threat to internal security, Member States may refrain from granting a period for voluntary departure. |
Or. en
Amendment 1027
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. The third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States by the date determined pursuant to paragraph 1. If not, the third-country national shall be subject of removal in accordance with Article 12. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1028
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. The third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States by the date determined pursuant to paragraph 1. If not, the third-country national shall be subject of removal in accordance with Article 12. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1029
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. The third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States by the date determined pursuant to paragraph 1. If not, the third-country national shall be subject of removal in accordance with Article 12. | 4. The returnee shall leave the territory of the Member States by the date determined pursuant to paragraph 1 or paragraph 3. If the returnee has not left by the date determined under paragraph 1, 2 or 3, then the returnee may be subject to removal in accordance with Article 13a. The date determined pursuant to paragraph 1, 2 or 3 shall be without prejudice to the right of a Member State to carry out a forced return on third country nationals where the conditions laid down in Article 13a are met. |
Or. en
Justification
Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are all relevant for setting the period for accepted return.
Amendment 1030
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. The third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States by the date determined pursuant to paragraph 1. If not, the third-country national shall be subject of removal in accordance with Article 12. | 4. The third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States by the date determined pursuant to paragraph 1. If not, the third-country national shall be subject of removal in accordance with Article 12. |
Or. en
Amendment 1031
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 a. Where there is a risk of absconding, or an application for legal stay has been dismissed as manifestly unfounded or fraudulent, or the person concerned poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16, Member States may refrain from granting a departure period and order immediate departure. |
Or. en
Amendment 1032
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 b. The departure period shall be counted from a date defined in national law. |
Or. en
Amendment 1033
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article13a | |
| Removal | |
| 1. The returnee shall be removed when: | |
| a. the third-country national has deliberately obstructed the competent authorities during the return procedure; | |
| b. the third-country national has, on more than one occasion, moved to another Member State without authorisation, including during the period set in accordance with Article 13; | |
| c. the third-country national falls within the scope of Article 16; | |
| d. the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13 and not been granted additional time to leave in accordance with paragraph 3 of that Article. | |
| 2. Member States' competent authorities shall issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal. | |
| 3. The competent authorities shall, on the basis of an individual assessment, assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement both by reference to the country of transfer and the country of origin. | |
| They may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the procedure, provided that an assessment of the merits of any application for international protection has been carried out in those previous stages. | |
| Where a return decision has been issued following a finding of inadmissibility in respect of an application for international protection, the return authorities shall themselves assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. Changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. The third-country national concerned shall be entitled to bring forward any relevant elements concerning his or her own personal circumstances. | |
| 4. Coercive measures may only be taken to ensure removal as a matter of last resort. Where coercive measures are taken they shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with the Charter of fundamental rights, national law, and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned. | |
| 5. In carrying out removals by air, Member States shall take into account the common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2004/573/EC1a. | |
| 1a Council Decision 2004/573/EC of 29 April 2004 on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of two or more Member States, of third-country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 28, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2004/573/oj). |
Or. en
Justification
Accepted return must be prioritised, as it is the most sustainable form of return. The law should not encourage/oblige authorities to enter into a forced return situation for the TCN’s perceived failure to cooperate. Failure to cooperate must be sustained before it should result in forced return. As the reasons why a TCN might try to move between MS can be varied, it is disproportionate to enter into a forced return situation for a single move to another MS by the returnee. In addition, if a returnee wants to accept the return decision, this should not be impeded by the rules. In order to harmonise the process of return and avoid any ambiguities in the process, all Member States should issue a removal order when a forced return is being carried out. Reliance on previous procedures can only be reasonable where the merits of any claim for asylum have been examined. Inadmissibility decisions, by their very nature, do not consider refoulement. The competent authorities should carry out an individual assessment in each case. The fact of being sanctioned under Article 22 does not automatically signify that the returnee will not accept the return decision, particularly in the light of the significant burden placed on returnees in terms of obligations. As the aim of the Regulation is to increase the level of returns, encouraging returnees to return should not be made harder
Amendment 1034
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 13a | |
| Removal | |
| 1. The third-country national subject to a return decision may be removed when: | |
| a) the third-country national poses a genuine and present threat to internal security; | |
| b) the third-country national has not left the territory of Member States by the date set in accordance with Article 13, for reasons not beyond his or her control. | |
| 2. Member States' competent authorities shall issue a separate administrative or judicial decision in writing ordering the removal. | |
| 3. Before issuing a removal order, the competent authorities shall assess compliance with the principle of non-refoulement by reference to the country of return, including any risk of onward refoulement. If a thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances has taken place in previous stages of the procedure, changes in circumstances and new elements evidencing a risk shall be duly examined. | |
| 4. Coercive measures may only be taken as a last resort to ensure removal. Such measures shall be necessary and proportionate and shall, in any case, not exceed the threshold of reasonable force. They shall be implemented in accordance with national law respecting fundamental rights and with due respect for the dignity and physical integrity of the third-country national concerned. Member States shall not apply coercive measures to minors. | |
| 5. In carrying out removals by air, Member States shall take into account the common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2004/573/EC. |
Or. en
Amendment 1035
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | deleted |
| Conditions for postponing removal | |
| 1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances: | |
| a. when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement; or | |
| b. when and for as long as suspension of the return decision in accordance with Article 28 is in place. | |
| 2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case. | |
| 3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated. | |
| 4. When taking a decision in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, Member States shall provide the third-country national concerned with a written confirmation setting out the period of postponement and their rights during that period. | |
| 5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. | |
| 6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed: | |
| a. basic needs; | |
| b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory; | |
| c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness; | |
| d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay; | |
| e. special needs of vulnerable persons. | |
| 7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Article 31 may be applied when the conditions are fulfilled. |
Or. en
Amendment 1036
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | deleted |
| Conditions for postponing removal | |
| 1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances: | |
| a. when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement; or | |
| b. when and for as long as suspension of the return decision in accordance with Article 28 is in place. | |
| 2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case. | |
| 3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated. | |
| 4. When taking a decision in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, Member States shall provide the third-country national concerned with a written confirmation setting out the period of postponement and their rights during that period. | |
| 5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. | |
| 6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed: | |
| a. basic needs; | |
| b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory; | |
| c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness; | |
| d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay; | |
| e. special needs of vulnerable persons. | |
| 7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Article 31 may be applied when the conditions are fulfilled. |
Or. en
Justification
Deletion of Article 14 is crucial for swift, enforceable returns. Non-refoulement claims belong exclusively in the asylum procedure (APR), preventing duplication and abuse. This aligns with the principle that appeals lack automatic suspensive effect. The entitlements granted during postponement create a paradoxical legal status, potentially more favourable than that of citizens, undermining fairness. This deletion reinforces the principle that an illegal stay must be terminated and followed by effective return.
Amendment 1037
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Conditions for postponing removal | Conditions for postponing or suspending return |
Or. en
Amendment 1038
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances: | 1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed when it is proven that it would violate the principle of non-refoulement. |
Or. en
Amendment 1039
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances: | 1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed when it is proven that it would violate the principle of non-refoulement. |
Or. en
Amendment 1040
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances: | 1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed when it is established that the removal would effectively violate the principle of non-refoulement. |
Or. en
Amendment 1041
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances: | 1. Member States shall postpone or suspend return in particular in the following circumstances: |
Or. en
Amendment 1042
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances: | 1. Removal pursuant to Article 13a shall be postponed in the following circumstances: |
Or. en
Amendment 1043
Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances: | 1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be suspended in the following circumstances: |
Or. en
Amendment 1044
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances: | 1. Member States shall postpone removal in the following circumstances: |
Or. en
Amendment 1045
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement; or | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1046
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement; or | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1047
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement; or | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1048
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. when and for as long as suspension of the return decision in accordance with Article 28 is in place. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1049
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. when and for as long as suspension of the return decision in accordance with Article 28 is in place. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1050
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. when and for as long as suspension of the return decision in accordance with Article 28 is in place. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1051
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b a. when it would violate the right to family life with family members present in the Member State's territory; |
Or. en
Amendment 1052
Cecilia Strada, Marco Tarquinio, Alessandro Zan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b a. when the cases set out in Article 7, paragraph 9 apply |
Or. en
Amendment 1053
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b b. when it would impact on the essential treatment of an illness; |
Or. en
Amendment 1054
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b c. when it would end access of the children to the education system; |
Or. en
Amendment 1055
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b d (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b d. when persons are identified as vulnerable; |
Or. en
Amendment 1056
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b e (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b e. when return is not in the best interest of the child. |
Or. en
Amendment 1057
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case. | deleted |
Or. fr
Amendment 1058
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case. | 2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case and provided that there is no risk of absconding in accordance with Article 30. |
Or. en
Amendment 1059
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case. | 2. Member States shall postpone removal for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case. Member States shall in particular take into account: |
Or. en
Amendment 1060
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case. | 2. Removal pursuant to Article 13a may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, including : |
Or. en
Justification
The elements listed in paragraph 6 of the proposal actually represent elements that should be taken into account in an initial assessment of whether a removal should be postponed.
Amendment 1061
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case. | 2. Return shall be postponed for an appropriate period, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case. |
Or. en
Amendment 1062
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) the third-country national’s physical state or mental capacity; |
Or. en
Amendment 1063
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) basic needs; |
Or. en
Amendment 1064
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) technical reasons, such as lack of transport capacity, or failure of the removal due to lack of identification. |
Or. en
Amendment 1065
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) family unity with family members present in the Member State’s territory; |
Or. en
Amendment 1066
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) emergency health care and essential treatment of illness; |
Or. en
Amendment 1067
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point d (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (d) access of minor children to the education system subject to the length of their stay; |
Or. en
Amendment 1068
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point e (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (e) special needs of vulnerable persons. |
Or. en
Amendment 1069
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1070
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated. | 3. If the third-country national requests postponement of return for justified reasons, the request shall be duly examined by the Member State. |
Or. en
Amendment 1071
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated. | 3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated and submitted without undue delay. |
Or. en
Amendment 1072
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated. | 3. A returnee shall be entitled to request postponement of removal. Such a request shall be duly substantiated. |
Or. en
Amendment 1073
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Rasa Juknevičienė
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. When taking a decision in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, Member States shall provide the third-country national concerned with a written confirmation setting out the period of postponement and their rights during that period. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1074
Ana Miguel Pedro
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. When taking a decision in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, Member States shall provide the third-country national concerned with a written confirmation setting out the period of postponement and their rights during that period. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1075
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. When taking a decision in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, Member States shall provide the third-country national concerned with a written confirmation setting out the period of postponement and their rights during that period. | 4. Member States shall provide the third-country national concerned with a written confirmation setting out the period of postponement including their rights and obligation during that period in accordance with paragraph 1. A translation of the confirmation may be communicated orally to the third-country national in a language they understand or are reasonably presumed to understand, including with the use of interpretation services. |
Or. en
Amendment 1076
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. When taking a decision in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, Member States shall provide the third-country national concerned with a written confirmation setting out the period of postponement and their rights during that period. | 4. Member States shall provide the third-country national concerned with a written confirmation of the postponement in accordance with paragraph 1. A translation of the confirmation may be communicated orally to the third-country national in a language they understand or are reasonably presumed to understand, including with the use of interpretation services. |
Or. en
Amendment 1077
Ana Miguel Pedro
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1078
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1079
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. | 5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. When reviewing the decision to postpone removal and where removal will be postponed beyond 6 months, the Member State shall review the return decision in accordance with Article 7(9). For any subsequent postponement of removal, the Member State shall also be required to undertake such a review. |
Or. en
Justification
As a return becomes less likely the longer the process takes, it is imperative that MS reconsider their options, when a removal is postponed beyond 6 months.
Amendment 1080
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. | 5. The decision to suspend or postpone return in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. Each review shall examine the possibility to grant an authorisation to stay in accordance with Article 7(9). After two reviews, if there has been no change in circumstances, the competent authority shall grant a residence permit. |
Or. en
Amendment 1081
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. | 5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. Each review shall include an assessment of alternative options in accordance with Article 7(9). After 12 months, Member States shall withdraw the return decision and apply the procedure in Article 7(1a) new. |
Or. en
Amendment 1082
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. | 5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be reviewed in case of substantial change of relevant circumstances. |
Or. en
Amendment 1083
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The decision to postpone removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be regularly reviewed, and at least every 6 months. | 5. The postponement of the removal in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 shall be reviewed in case of change of relevant circumstances. |
Or. en
Amendment 1084
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed: | deleted |
| a. basic needs; | |
| b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory; | |
| c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness; | |
| d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay; | |
| e. special needs of vulnerable persons. |
Or. fr
Amendment 1085
Ana Miguel Pedro
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed: | deleted |
| a. basic needs; | |
| b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory; | |
| c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness; | |
| d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay; | |
| e. special needs of vulnerable persons. |
Or. en
Amendment 1086
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed: | deleted |
| a. basic needs; | |
| b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory; | |
| c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness; | |
| d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay; | |
| e. special needs of vulnerable persons. |
Or. en
Amendment 1087
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed: | deleted |
| a. basic needs; | |
| b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory; | |
| c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness; | |
| d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay; | |
| e. special needs of vulnerable persons. |
Or. en
Amendment 1088
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed: | 6. For the purpose of the review referred to in paragraph 5, and when considering the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed, Member States shall take the elements listed in paragraph 3 into account. |
Or. en
Amendment 1089
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed: | 6. During periods for which the removal has been postponed, Member States shall ensure the following: |
Or. en
Amendment 1090
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the removal has been postponed: | 6. The following shall be taken into account concerning the situation of the third-country national during periods for which the return has been suspended or postponed: |
Or. en
Amendment 1091
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. basic needs; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1092
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. basic needs; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1093
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. basic needs; | a. third country nationals’ basic needs are provided for; |
Or. en
Amendment 1094
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1095
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1096
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory; | b. family unity with family members present in the Member State's territory is maintained; |
Or. en
Amendment 1097
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1098
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness; | c. health care and treatment of illness are provided; |
Or. en
Amendment 1099
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. emergency health care and essential treatment of illness; | c. health care and essential treatment of illness; |
Or. en
Amendment 1100
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point d
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1101
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point d
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1102
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point d
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay; | d. access of minors to the basic education system is guaranteed subject to the length of their stay; |
Or. en
Amendment 1103
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point d
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. access of minors to the basic education system subject to the length of their stay; | d. access of children to the education system; |
Or. en
Amendment 1104
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point e
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. special needs of vulnerable persons. | e. special needs of vulnerable persons are catered to. |
Or. en
Amendment 1105
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Article 31 may be applied when the conditions are fulfilled. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1106
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Article 31 may be applied when the conditions are fulfilled. | 7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Article 31 may be applied when the conditions therefor are fulfilled. |
Or. en
Justification
If the conditions are fulfilled, then the provisions of Article 31 may be applied.
Amendment 1107
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Article 31 may be applied when the conditions are fulfilled. | 7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Articles 21, 29, and 31 may be applied when the conditions are fulfilled. |
Or. en
Amendment 1108
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 7 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 a. Removal shall not be postponed where the third-country national fails to comply with the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21, where he or she poses a security risk in accordance with Article 16, or where a risk of absconding exists in accordance with Article 30. |
Or. en
Amendment 1109
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 15 | deleted |
| Monitoring of removal | |
| 1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during removal operations. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means. | |
| 2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the removal operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming removal operations and ensure access to relevant locations. | |
| 3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay. |
Or. fr
Amendment 1110
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 15 | deleted |
| Monitoring of removal | |
| 1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during removal operations. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means. | |
| 2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the removal operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming removal operations and ensure access to relevant locations. | |
| 3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay. |
Or. en
Justification
The idea behind this regulation is to reduce administrative burdens, not to create new ones.
Amendment 1111
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 15 | deleted |
| Monitoring of removal | |
| 1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during removal operations. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means. | |
| 2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the removal operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming removal operations and ensure access to relevant locations. | |
| 3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay. |
Or. en
Amendment 1112
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Monitoring of removal | Monitoring of the return procedure |
Or. en
Amendment 1113
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Monitoring of removal | Monitoring of return procedures |
Or. en
Amendment 1114
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Monitoring of removal | Monitoring of return |
Or. en
Amendment 1115
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during removal operations. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1116
Ana Miguel Pedro
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during removal operations. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1117
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during removal operations. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means. | 1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during all stages of the return procedure. Such mechanism shall complement and operate in full synergy with the relevant monitoring mechanisms established under Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 (Screening Regulation) and Article 43 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 (APR), and shall be established in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Fundamental Rights Agency. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means, including human and financial resources, as well as access to all necessary information and physical locations. |
Or. en
Amendment 1118
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during removal operations. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means. | 1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during return operations and cover all stages of the return procedure established in this Directive and the return border procedure established in Regulation (EU) 2024/1349. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means, including appropriate funding and resources. |
Or. en
Amendment 1119
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during removal operations. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means. | 1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism in accordance with the requirements set out in this Article, which shall: |
Or. en
Amendment 1120
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during removal operations. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means. | 1. Member States may provide for an existing mechanism to monitor removal operations. Member States determine if the monitoring mechanism is granted access to appropriate means. |
Or. en
Amendment 1121
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during removal operations. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism with appropriate means. | 1. Member States shall provide for a mechanism to monitor the effectiveness, efficiency and swiftness of removal operations. Member States shall ensure that the monitoring mechanism has access to the appropriate means. |
Or. en
Amendment 1122
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) monitor compliance with Union and international law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular as regards the principle of non-refoulement, the best interests of the child and the relevant rules on detention; and |
Or. en
Justification
The language of Article 15 has been enhanced with reference to the monitoring mechanisms established under the Pact, in particular, Article 10 of the Screening Regulation.
Amendment 1123
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) ensure that substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights in all relevant activities in relation to the return process are dealt with effectively and without undue delay, and trigger, where necessary, investigations into such allegations and monitor the progress of such investigations. | |
| The independent monitoring mechanism shall cover all activities undertaken by the Member States implementing this Regulation. The independent monitoring mechanism shall have the power to issue annual recommendations to Member States. Member States shall put in place adequate safeguards to guarantee the independence of the independent monitoring mechanism. National Ombudspersons and national human rights institutions, including national preventive mechanisms established under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted on 18 December 2002 at the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly of the United Nations by resolution A/RES/57/199 (‘OPCAT’), shall participate in the operation of the independent monitoring mechanism and may be appointed to carry out all or part of the tasks of the independent monitoring mechanism. The independent monitoring mechanism may also involve relevant international and non-governmental organisations and public bodies independent from the authorities carrying out the screening. Insofar as one or more of those institutions, organisations or bodies are not directly involved in the independent monitoring mechanism, the independent monitoring mechanism shall establish and maintain close links with them. The independent monitoring mechanism shall establish and maintain close links with the national data protection authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor. |
Or. en
Justification
Aligned with Article 10 Screening Regulation.
Amendment 1124
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 a. Member States shall establish appropriate safeguards to ensure the independence of the independent monitoring mechanism. National ombudsmen or human rights defenders and national human rights institutions, including the national preventive mechanism provided for in the Optional Protocol to the 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, shall participate in the functioning of the independent monitoring mechanism and may be appointed to carry out all or part of the functions of the independent monitoring mechanism. |
Or. en
Amendment 1125
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 b. The independent monitoring mechanism may also involve the participation of relevant international and non-governmental organisations and public bodies that are independent of the authorities carrying out the return procedure. Insofar as one or more of those institutions, organisations or entities do not participate directly in the independent monitoring mechanism, the mechanism shall establish and maintain close links with them. The independent monitoring mechanism shall establish and maintain close links with the national data protection authorities and with the European Data Protection Supervisor. |
Or. en
Amendment 1126
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 c. The Fundamental Rights Agency shall publish general guidelines for Member States on the establishment of a monitoring mechanism and its independent functioning. Member States may request the support of the Fundamental Rights Agency for the development of their independent monitoring mechanism, including the safeguards for its independence, as well as the monitoring methodology and appropriate training schemes. |
Or. en
Amendment 1127
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 d (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 d. The independent monitoring mechanism shall ensure that its monitoring procedures incorporate a gender-sensitive perspective and include specific protocols for identifying and addressing gender-based violations. The independent monitoring body shall include experts trained in identifying gender-based violence, exploitation, and other rights violations affecting women and girls. |
Or. en
Amendment 1128
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the removal operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming removal operations and ensure access to relevant locations. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1129
Ana Miguel Pedro
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the removal operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming removal operations and ensure access to relevant locations. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1130
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the removal operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming removal operations and ensure access to relevant locations. | 2. Member state may inform the monitoring mechanism about upcoming removal operations and grant access to relevant locations and grant access only to persons acting on behalf the monitoring mechanism and who received necessary security clearance in accordance with national law. |
Or. en
Amendment 1131
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the removal operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming removal operations and ensure access to relevant locations. | 2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the return procedures to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Such checks may be complemented by desk review. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming removal operations and ensure access to relevant locations. |
Or. en
Amendment 1132
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the removal operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming removal operations and ensure access to relevant locations. | 2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the return operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which shall be unannounced. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming return operations and ensure access to relevant persons, documents and locations. |
Or. en
Amendment 1133
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the removal operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming removal operations and ensure access to relevant locations. | 2. Member States may inform the monitoring mechanism about upcoming removal operations and grant access to relevant locations to persons acting on behalf of the monitoring mechanism who have received an appropriate security clearance issued by a competent authority in accordance with national law |
Or. en
Amendment 1134
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select the removal operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Member States shall inform the monitoring body in advance about upcoming removal operations and ensure access to relevant locations. | 2. The independent monitoring mechanism shall select removal operations to monitor based on a risk assessment and conduct its activities on the basis of desk review and on-the-spot checks which may be unannounced. Member States shall inform the independent monitoring mechanism in advance about upcoming removal operations. |
Or. en
Amendment 1135
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. Member States shall provide the independent monitoring mechanism with access to all relevant locations, including detention facilities, individuals and documents, in so far as such access is necessary to allow the independent monitoring mechanism to fulfil the obligations set out in this Article. Access to relevant locations or classified information shall be granted only to persons acting on behalf of the independent monitoring mechanism and having received appropriate security clearance issued by a competent authority in accordance with national law. |
Or. en
Amendment 1136
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. Member States shall extend the provision of an independent monitoring mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during the return border procedure. |
Or. en
Amendment 1137
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1138
Maciej Wąsik, Mariusz Kamiński, Jacek Ozdoba, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1139
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay. | 3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during return operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority via establishing a confidential, child and gender-sensitive complaint mechanism by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay. Member States shall ensure, where appropriate, referral for the purposes of initiating civil or criminal judicial proceedings in cases of violation or breach of fundamental rights, in accordance with national law. |
Or. en
Amendment 1140
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay. | 3. The monitoring mechanism shall establish and maintain a confidential, child-friendly and gender-sensitive complaints mechanism. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during the return procedure shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall investigate such allegations effectively and without undue delay, and shall ensure appropriate consequences in accordance with national law. |
Or. en
Amendment 1141
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay. | 3. Substantiated allegations of failure to speedily and effectively implement removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay. |
Or. en
Amendment 1142
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority by the monitoring mechanism. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay. | 3. Substantiated allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights during removal operations shall be communicated to the competent national authority. The competent authorities shall deal with such allegations effectively and without undue delay. |
Or. en
Amendment 1143
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. The independent monitoring mechanism referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be without prejudice to the monitoring mechanism for the purpose of monitoring the Screening of third country nationals at external borders as set out in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 , to the monitoring of the border procedure as set out in Article 43, paragraph 4 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, and to the role of the fundamental rights monitors in monitoring respect of fundamental rights in all activities of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency as set out in Article 80 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. |
Or. en
Amendment 1144
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. The independent monitoring mechanism shall be empowered to make recommendations to Member States and shall publish an annual report on its activities and findings. |
Or. en
Amendment 1145
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. The independent monitoring mechanism shall publish reports on its activities and findings related to return operations. |
Or. en
Amendment 1146
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 b. Member States shall extend the mandate of the independent monitoring mechanism to enable monitoring of the respect of fundamental rights during the return border procedure. |
Or. en
Amendment 1147
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 b. Member States shall equip the independent monitoring mechanism referred to in paragraph 1 with appropriate financial means. |
Or. en
Amendment 1148
Mélissa Camara
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 16 | deleted |
| Return of third-country nationals posing security risks | |
| 1. This Article shall apply to third-country nationals where: | |
| a. they pose a threat to public policy, to public security or to national security; | |
| b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ; | |
| c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State. | |
| 2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12. | |
| 3. By way of derogation from the relevant provisions of this Regulation, third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article may be: | |
| a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years; | |
| b. detained in accordance with Article 29(3), point (c); | |
| c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners; | |
| d. subject to detention for a period that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 32(3) and that is determined by a judicial authority taking into account the circumstances of the individual case, and that is subject to a review by a judicial authority at least every three months. | |
| 4. By way of derogation from the provisions of Article 28(2) and (3), the enforcement of a return decision issued to a third-country national falling within the scope of this Article shall not be suspended unless there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | |
| 27 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/584/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 1149
Estrella Galán
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 16 | deleted |
| Return of third-country nationals posing security risks | |
| 1. This Article shall apply to third-country nationals where: | |
| a. they pose a threat to public policy, to public security or to national security; | |
| b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ; | |
| c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State. | |
| 2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12. | |
| 3. By way of derogation from the relevant provisions of this Regulation, third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article may be: | |
| a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years; | |
| b. detained in accordance with Article 29(3), point (c); | |
| c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners; | |
| d. subject to detention for a period that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 32(3) and that is determined by a judicial authority taking into account the circumstances of the individual case, and that is subject to a review by a judicial authority at least every three months. | |
| 4. By way of derogation from the provisions of Article 28(2) and (3), the enforcement of a return decision issued to a third-country national falling within the scope of this Article shall not be suspended unless there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | |
| 27 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/584/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 1150
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Return of third-country nationals posing security risks | Return of third-country nationals posing a risk to internal security |
Or. en
Amendment 1151
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Return of third-country nationals posing security risks | Removal of third-country nationals posing security risks |
Or. en
Amendment 1152
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. This Article shall apply to third-country nationals where: | 1. Third-country nationals who are subject to a return decision and who, on the basis of an individual assessment, are considered to be a threat to public policy, internal security, public health or the international relations of any of the Member States shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 13. |
Or. en
Justification
The language is aligned with refusal of entry grounds laid down in the Schengen Borders Code. This is the best parallel for return decisions. There should always be an individual assessment.
Amendment 1153
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. This Article shall apply to third-country nationals where: | 1. This Article shall apply to third-country nationals, including unaccompanied minors, where: |
Or. fr
Amendment 1154
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. they pose a threat to public policy, to public security or to national security; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1155
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ; | deleted |
| 27 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/584/oj). |
Or. en
Justification
This ground is already covered under point a.
Amendment 1156
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ; | b. there are indications that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA1 or have committed an offence carrying a penalty involving the deprivation of liberty of at least 3 months under national law; |
| 27 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/584/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 1157
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ; | b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed or facilitated a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ; |
| 27 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/584/oj). | 27 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/584/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 1158
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ; | b. there are clear indications for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ; |
| 27 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/584/oj). | 27 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/584/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 1159
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ; | b. there are grounds for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA27 ; |
| 27 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/584/oj). | 27 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/584/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 1160
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b a. there are indications that the person is involved in any of the offences referred to in Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
Or. en
Amendment 1161
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State. | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
This ground is already covered under point a.
Amendment 1162
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State. | c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit or facilitate an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State. |
Or. en
Amendment 1163
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State. | c. there are indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State. |
Or. en
Amendment 1164
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State. | c. there are reasonable indications of their intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State. |
Or. en
Amendment 1165
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. They have committed an offence carrying a penalty that is punishable with a sentence of at least 2 years in prison |
Or. en
Amendment 1166
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. they have committed an offence carrying a penalty involving the deprivation of liberty under national law; |
Or. en
Amendment 1167
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. there are indications that they pose any other security threat as identified under national law. |
Or. en
Amendment 1168
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. they have been convicted of criminal offence in accordance with national legislation; |
Or. en
Amendment 1169
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c b. there are clear indications that the third-country national is involved in activities that incite, support, or prepare for acts of violent extremism or terrorism; |
Or. en
Amendment 1170
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c b. the third-country national is a citizen of a country listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2024/1348; |
Or. en
Amendment 1171
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c b. they are repeat offenders of petty criminality; |
Or. en
Amendment 1172
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c c. there are credible grounds to believe that the third-country national engages in conduct posing a threat to the fundamental interests or constitutional order of a Member State. |
Or. en
Amendment 1173
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c c. the Member State finds it necessary, as provided for in national law, for reasons other than those listed in subparagraph (a) to (e). |
Or. en
Amendment 1174
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 a. Member States may, in accordance with their national law, establish additional grounds for identifying a third-country national as a person posing a security risk. |
Or. en
Amendment 1175
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12. | 2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be prioritised for removal in accordance with Article 12. Member States shall remove the third-country national without undue delay. |
Or. en
Amendment 1176
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12. | 2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, with the exception of paragraphs 3, 4 and 6, which shall not apply to them. |
Or. fr
Amendment 1177
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12. | 2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal. |
Or. en
Amendment 1178
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12. | 2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal. |
Or. en
Amendment 1179
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. Return decisions concerning third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article may be dealt with and executed as a matter of priority. |
Or. en
Amendment 1180
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. By way of derogation from the relevant provisions of this Regulation, third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article may be: | 3. By way of derogation from the relevant provisions of this Regulation, third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be: |
Or. en
Amendment 1181
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1182
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years; | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
Deleted to ensure consistency with article 10.
Amendment 1183
Rasa Juknevičienė
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years; | a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) or an entry ban for an indefinite duration where justified and proportionate to the security risk posed by the third-country national; |
Or. en
Justification
This amendment aims to ensure that Member States have the ability to issue an entry ban of an indefinite duration in cases where a third-country national poses a serious and persistent security threat. While Articles 10(6) and 16(3) limit the maximum duration of an entry ban, certain cases involving high-risk individuals require a more robust and long-term preventive response.Allowing an entry ban without a fixed end date—where duly justified and proportionate—provides Member States with the necessary flexibility to address situations in which the security risk is not likely to diminish within a predictable timeframe.The possibility to impose an indefinite entry ban remains strictly conditional on an individualised assessment, respect for fundamental rights and safeguards, and periodic review under national law to ensure that the measure does not persist longer than the underlying threat. This approach strengthens the protection of internal security while maintaining full compliance with the principles of necessity and proportionality.
Amendment 1184
Ana Miguel Pedro
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years; | a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) or an entry ban for an indefinite duration where justified and proportionate to the security risk posed by the third-country national; |
Or. en
Amendment 1185
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years; | a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) or an entry ban for an indefinite duration where justified and proportionate to the security risk posed by the third-country national; |
Or. en
Amendment 1186
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years; | a. subject to a lifelong entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10(7); |
Or. fr
Amendment 1187
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years; | a. subject to a lifetime entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10. |
Or. en
Justification
Those who pose a security risk should never be permitted on EU territory again.
Amendment 1188
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. subject to an entry ban issued in accordance with Article 10 that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 10(6) by an additional maximum period of 10 years; | a. subject to an initial entry ban that exceeds the duration referred to in Article 10(6); |
Or. en
Amendment 1189
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners; | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
Administrative law relating to immigration should not lead to a presumption of criminality. Third-country nationals who have committed criminal offences should be prosecuted under criminal law of the Member State in question. That is how criminals should be dealt with.
Amendment 1190
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners; | c. detained in prisons; |
Or. en
Amendment 1191
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners; | c. detained in prisons or secure facilities and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners; |
Or. en
Amendment 1192
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners; | c. detained in prisons and, where possible, be kept separated from ordinary prisoners; |
Or. en
Amendment 1193
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners; | c. detained in prisons |
Or. en
Amendment 1194
Ana Miguel Pedro
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. detained in prisons and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners; | c. detained in prisons; |
Or. en
Amendment 1195
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point d
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. subject to detention for a period that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 32(3) and that is determined by a judicial authority taking into account the circumstances of the individual case, and that is subject to a review by a judicial authority at least every three months. | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
Deleted reference to maximum detention periods in Article 32. So deleted here for consistency.
Amendment 1196
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point d
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. subject to detention for a period that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 32(3) and that is determined by a judicial authority taking into account the circumstances of the individual case, and that is subject to a review by a judicial authority at least every three months. | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
Administrative law relating to immigration should not lead to a presumption of criminality. Third-country nationals who have committed criminal offences should be prosecuted under criminal law of the Member State in question. That is how criminals should be dealt with.
Amendment 1197
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point d
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. subject to detention for a period that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 32(3) and that is determined by a judicial authority taking into account the circumstances of the individual case, and that is subject to a review by a judicial authority at least every three months. | d. subject to detention for additional periods that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 32(3) and that is determined by a competent authority. |
Or. en
Amendment 1198
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point d
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. subject to detention for a period that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 32(3) and that is determined by a judicial authority taking into account the circumstances of the individual case, and that is subject to a review by a judicial authority at least every three months. | d. subject to detention for a period that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in Article 32(3) and that is determined by a judicial authority taking into account the circumstances of the individual case, and that is subject to a review by a competent authority at least every six months. |
Or. en
Amendment 1199
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Third country nationals falling within the scope of this Article may be subject to a temporary or permanent entry ban in accordance with Article 10(7)(a). |
Or. en
Amendment 1200
Mary Khan
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. By way of derogation from the provisions of Article 28(2) and (3), the enforcement of a return decision issued to a third-country national falling within the scope of this Article shall not be suspended unless there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1201
Marieke Ehlers
on behalf of the PfE Group
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. By way of derogation from the provisions of Article 28(2) and (3), the enforcement of a return decision issued to a third-country national falling within the scope of this Article shall not be suspended unless there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
Consistency with article 28, where appeal doesn't have suspensive effect at all.
Amendment 1202
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. By way of derogation from the provisions of Article 28(2) and (3), the enforcement of a return decision issued to a third-country national falling within the scope of this Article shall not be suspended unless there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 1203
Nadine Morano
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. By way of derogation from the provisions of Article 28(2) and (3), the enforcement of a return decision issued to a third-country national falling within the scope of this Article shall not be suspended unless there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 28(2) and (3), the enforcement of a return decision issued to a third-country national falling within the scope of this Article shall not be suspended. |
Or. fr
Amendment 1204
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. By way of derogation from the provisions of Article 28(2) and (3), the enforcement of a return decision issued to a third-country national falling within the scope of this Article shall not be suspended unless there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | 4. The enforcement of a return decision issued to a third-country national falling within the scope of this Article shall not be suspended unless there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. |
Or. en
Justification
Article 28(2) and (3) provide guarantees of the right to an effective remedy. These rights apply to all persons in the EU, even those considered to be a risk to internal security. It may be reasonable to indicate that the only ground on which a removal in respect of such persons should be suspended is a risk of breach of principle of non-refoulement. Whether such a risk exists must be able to be examined by a court in accordance with Article 28.
Amendment 1205
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 4 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 a. Security assessments carried out during the return procedure may rely on and take into account any previous security checks conducted by competent authorities in the framework of other procedures, including asylum, visa, border control, or screening procedures. |
Or. en