Text · Amendment list
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
Full title
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-781176 · COM(2025)0101 – 2025/0059(COD)
- Kind
- Amendment list LIBE-AM-781176
- Date
- 1 December 2025
- Committee
- Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
- Dossier
- 2025/0059(COD)
More facts (2)
- Formats
- Official page PDF Word
- Reference
- COM(2025)0101 – 2025/0059(COD)
Text
The text as parsed from the official Word file. Every paragraph has a link (¶) and can be saved to a project as a passage.
Jump to an amendment (410)
- Amendment 1606
- Amendment 1607
- Amendment 1608
- Amendment 1609
- Amendment 1610
- Amendment 1611
- Amendment 1612
- Amendment 1613
- Amendment 1614
- Amendment 1615
- Amendment 1616
- Amendment 1617
- Amendment 1618
- Amendment 1619
- Amendment 1620
- Amendment 1621
- Amendment 1622
- Amendment 1623
- Amendment 1624
- Amendment 1625
- Amendment 1626
- Amendment 1627
- Amendment 1628
- Amendment 1629
- Amendment 1630
- Amendment 1631
- Amendment 1632
- Amendment 1633
- Amendment 1634
- Amendment 1635
- Amendment 1636
- Amendment 1637
- Amendment 1638
- Amendment 1639
- Amendment 1640
- Amendment 1641
- Amendment 1642
- Amendment 1643
- Amendment 1644
- Amendment 1645
- Amendment 1646
- Amendment 1647
- Amendment 1648
- Amendment 1649
- Amendment 1650
- Amendment 1651
- Amendment 1652
- Amendment 1653
- Amendment 1654
- Amendment 1655
- Amendment 1656
- Amendment 1657
- Amendment 1658
- Amendment 1659
- Amendment 1660
- Amendment 1661
- Amendment 1662
- Amendment 1663
- Amendment 1664
- Amendment 1665
- Amendment 1666
- Amendment 1667
- Amendment 1668
- Amendment 1669
- Amendment 1670
- Amendment 1671
- Amendment 1672
- Amendment 1673
- Amendment 1674
- Amendment 1675
- Amendment 1676
- Amendment 1677
- Amendment 1678
- Amendment 1679
- Amendment 1680
- Amendment 1681
- Amendment 1682
- Amendment 1683
- Amendment 1684
- Amendment 1685
- Amendment 1686
- Amendment 1687
- Amendment 1688
- Amendment 1689
- Amendment 1690
- Amendment 1691
- Amendment 1692
- Amendment 1693
- Amendment 1694
- Amendment 1695
- Amendment 1696
- Amendment 1697
- Amendment 1698
- Amendment 1699
- Amendment 1700
- Amendment 1701
- Amendment 1702
- Amendment 1703
- Amendment 1704
- Amendment 1705
- Amendment 1706
- Amendment 1707
- Amendment 1708
- Amendment 1709
- Amendment 1710
- Amendment 1711
- Amendment 1712
- Amendment 1713
- Amendment 1714
- Amendment 1715
- Amendment 1716
- Amendment 1717
- Amendment 1718
- Amendment 1719
- Amendment 1720
- Amendment 1721
- Amendment 1722
- Amendment 1723
- Amendment 1724
- Amendment 1725
- Amendment 1726
- Amendment 1727
- Amendment 1728
- Amendment 1729
- Amendment 1730
- Amendment 1731
- Amendment 1732
- Amendment 1733
- Amendment 1734
- Amendment 1735
- Amendment 1736
- Amendment 1737
- Amendment 1738
- Amendment 1739
- Amendment 1740
- Amendment 1741
- Amendment 1742
- Amendment 1743
- Amendment 1744
- Amendment 1745
- Amendment 1746
- Amendment 1747
- Amendment 1748
- Amendment 1749
- Amendment 1750
- Amendment 1751
- Amendment 1752
- Amendment 1753
- Amendment 1754
- Amendment 1755
- Amendment 1756
- Amendment 1757
- Amendment 1758
- Amendment 1759
- Amendment 1760
- Amendment 1761
- Amendment 1762
- Amendment 1763
- Amendment 1764
- Amendment 1765
- Amendment 1766
- Amendment 1767
- Amendment 1768
- Amendment 1769
- Amendment 1770
- Amendment 1771
- Amendment 1772
- Amendment 1773
- Amendment 1774
- Amendment 1775
- Amendment 1776
- Amendment 1777
- Amendment 1778
- Amendment 1779
- Amendment 1780
- Amendment 1781
- Amendment 1782
- Amendment 1783
- Amendment 1784
- Amendment 1785
- Amendment 1786
- Amendment 1787
- Amendment 1788
- Amendment 1789
- Amendment 1790
- Amendment 1791
- Amendment 1792
- Amendment 1793
- Amendment 1794
- Amendment 1795
- Amendment 1796
- Amendment 1797
- Amendment 1798
- Amendment 1799
- Amendment 1800
- Amendment 1801
- Amendment 1802
- Amendment 1803
- Amendment 1804
- Amendment 1805
- Amendment 1806
- Amendment 1807
- Amendment 1808
- Amendment 1809
- Amendment 1810
- Amendment 1811
- Amendment 1812
- Amendment 1813
- Amendment 1814
- Amendment 1815
- Amendment 1816
- Amendment 1817
- Amendment 1818
- Amendment 1819
- Amendment 1820
- Amendment 1821
- Amendment 1822
- Amendment 1823
- Amendment 1824
- Amendment 1825
- Amendment 1826
- Amendment 1827
- Amendment 1828
- Amendment 1829
- Amendment 1830
- Amendment 1831
- Amendment 1832
- Amendment 1833
- Amendment 1834
- Amendment 1835
- Amendment 1836
- Amendment 1837
- Amendment 1838
- Amendment 1839
- Amendment 1840
- Amendment 1841
- Amendment 1842
- Amendment 1843
- Amendment 1844
- Amendment 1845
- Amendment 1846
- Amendment 1847
- Amendment 1848
- Amendment 1849
- Amendment 1850
- Amendment 1851
- Amendment 1852
- Amendment 1853
- Amendment 1854
- Amendment 1855
- Amendment 1856
- Amendment 1857
- Amendment 1858
- Amendment 1859
- Amendment 1860
- Amendment 1861
- Amendment 1862
- Amendment 1863
- Amendment 1864
- Amendment 1865
- Amendment 1866
- Amendment 1867
- Amendment 1868
- Amendment 1869
- Amendment 1870
- Amendment 1871
- Amendment 1872
- Amendment 1873
- Amendment 1874
- Amendment 1875
- Amendment 1876
- Amendment 1877
- Amendment 1878
- Amendment 1879
- Amendment 1880
- Amendment 1881
- Amendment 1882
- Amendment 1883
- Amendment 1884
- Amendment 1885
- Amendment 1886
- Amendment 1887
- Amendment 1888
- Amendment 1889
- Amendment 1890
- Amendment 1891
- Amendment 1892
- Amendment 1893
- Amendment 1894
- Amendment 1895
- Amendment 1896
- Amendment 1897
- Amendment 1898
- Amendment 1899
- Amendment 1900
- Amendment 1901
- Amendment 1902
- Amendment 1903
- Amendment 1904
- Amendment 1905
- Amendment 1906
- Amendment 1907
- Amendment 1908
- Amendment 1909
- Amendment 1910
- Amendment 1911
- Amendment 1912
- Amendment 1913
- Amendment 1914
- Amendment 1915
- Amendment 1916
- Amendment 1917
- Amendment 1918
- Amendment 1919
- Amendment 1920
- Amendment 1921
- Amendment 1922
- Amendment 1923
- Amendment 1924
- Amendment 1925
- Amendment 1926
- Amendment 1927
- Amendment 1928
- Amendment 1929
- Amendment 1930
- Amendment 1931
- Amendment 1932
- Amendment 1933
- Amendment 1934
- Amendment 1935
- Amendment 1936
- Amendment 1937
- Amendment 1938
- Amendment 1939
- Amendment 1940
- Amendment 1941
- Amendment 1942
- Amendment 1943
- Amendment 1944
- Amendment 1945
- Amendment 1946
- Amendment 1947
- Amendment 1948
- Amendment 1949
- Amendment 1950
- Amendment 1951
- Amendment 1952
- Amendment 1953
- Amendment 1954
- Amendment 1955
- Amendment 1956
- Amendment 1957
- Amendment 1958
- Amendment 1959
- Amendment 1960
- Amendment 1961
- Amendment 1962
- Amendment 1963
- Amendment 1964
- Amendment 1965
- Amendment 1966
- Amendment 1967
- Amendment 1968
- Amendment 1969
- Amendment 1970
- Amendment 1971
- Amendment 1972
- Amendment 1973
- Amendment 1974
- Amendment 1975
- Amendment 1976
- Amendment 1977
- Amendment 1978
- Amendment 1979
- Amendment 1980
- Amendment 1981
- Amendment 1982
- Amendment 1983
- Amendment 1984
- Amendment 1985
- Amendment 1986
- Amendment 1987
- Amendment 1988
- Amendment 1989
- Amendment 1990
- Amendment 1991
- Amendment 1992
- Amendment 1993
- Amendment 1994
- Amendment 1995
- Amendment 1996
- Amendment 1997
- Amendment 1998
- Amendment 1999
- Amendment 2000
- Amendment 2001
- Amendment 2002
- Amendment 2003
- Amendment 2004
- Amendment 2005
- Amendment 2006
- Amendment 2007
- Amendment 2008
- Amendment 2009
- Amendment 2010
- Amendment 2011
- Amendment 2012
- Amendment 2013
- Amendment 2014
- Amendment 2015
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The legal assistance and representation shall consist of the preparation of the appeal or request for review, including, at least, the preparation of the procedural documents required under national law and, in the event of a hearing, participation in that hearing before a judicial authority to ensure the effective exercise of the right of defence. Such assistance shall not affect any assistance provided for under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. | 3. The legal assistance and representation shall consist of, at least, the preparation of the procedural documents required under national law, the preparation of the appeal itself and, in the event of a hearing, participation in that hearing before a court or a tribunal to ensure the effective exercise of the right of defence. Such assistance shall not affect any assistance provided for under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national. | 4. Free legal assistance and representation financed or provided by the third-country national’s country of origin, including through consular services or through accredited legal professionals appointed or funded by that country, shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons, admitted or permitted under national law to assist or represent the third country national or by non-governmental organisations accredited under national law to provide legal services or representation to third country nationals. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national. | 4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by independent lawyers. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national. | 4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict with observance of national law or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national. | 4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons or organisations, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national. | 4. Free legal assistance and representation offered by origin or citizenship country of the third-country national, including through consular or accreditated legal professionals funded by that country shall be provided by admitted or permitted persons accordingly to national law. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national. | 4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national. |
It is not clear who other suitably qualified persons would be if they are not legal adviser who can appear before a Court or Tribunal.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Free legal assistance and representation shall be provided by legal advisers or other suitably qualified persons, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national. | 4. Legal assistance and representation shall be provided by suitably qualified persons, as admitted or permitted under national law, whose interests do not conflict or could not potentially conflict with those of the third-country national. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The provision of free legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure may be excluded by the Member States where: | deleted |
| a. the third-country national is considered to have sufficient resources to afford legal assistance and representation at his or her own cost; | |
| b. it is considered that the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive; | |
| c. the appeal or review is at a second level of appeal or higher, as provided for under national law, including re-hearings or reviews of appeal; | |
| d. the third-country national is already assisted or represented by a legal adviser. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The provision of free legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure may be excluded by the Member States where: | deleted |
| a. the third-country national is considered to have sufficient resources to afford legal assistance and representation at his or her own cost; | |
| b. it is considered that the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive; | |
| c. the appeal or review is at a second level of appeal or higher, as provided for under national law, including re-hearings or reviews of appeal; | |
| d. the third-country national is already assisted or represented by a legal adviser. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The provision of free legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure may be excluded by the Member States where: | deleted |
| a. the third-country national is considered to have sufficient resources to afford legal assistance and representation at his or her own cost; | |
| b. it is considered that the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive; | |
| c. the appeal or review is at a second level of appeal or higher, as provided for under national law, including re-hearings or reviews of appeal; | |
| d. the third-country national is already assisted or represented by a legal adviser. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The provision of free legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure may be excluded by the Member States where: | 5. Where free legal assistance and representation is provided pursuant to national law, Member States may exclude or end its provision on any of the grounds listed below, without prejudice to their ability to rely on additional grounds provided for in national law: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The provision of free legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure may be excluded by the Member States where: | 5. The provision of legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure may be excluded by the Member States where duly justified. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the third-country national is considered to have sufficient resources to afford legal assistance and representation at his or her own cost; | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the third-country national is considered to have sufficient resources to afford legal assistance and representation at his or her own cost; | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. it is considered that the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive; | deleted |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. it is considered that the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive; | deleted |
To determine that an appeal is without merit or is abusive, it will require a Court or tribunal to examine the case.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. it is considered that the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive; | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. the appeal or review is at a second level of appeal or higher, as provided for under national law, including re-hearings or reviews of appeal; | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. the appeal or review is at a second level of appeal or higher, as provided for under national law, including re-hearings or reviews of appeal; | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. the third-country national is already assisted or represented by a legal adviser. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. the third-country national is already assisted or represented by a legal adviser. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d a. the third-country national is a national of a country designated as a safe third country or safe country of origin in accordance with the relevant provisions of Union law; |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d a. the third-country national has failed to cooperate with the competent authorities to an extent that substantially hinders the proper examination of the appeal. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d a. the third-country national has failed, without justified reason, to comply with obligations to cooperate under Article 21 |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| da. any other criteria defined in the national law of the Member States. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d b. the third-country national is subject to a criminal investigation or has been convicted of a criminal offence, and national law requires that legal assistance in immigration or return proceedings be limited or excluded in such cases; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d b. The third-country national already received subsidised or free legal assistance during his asylum procedure. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d c. the third-country national poses a threat to public policy or public security, and national law provides for restricted access to free legal assistance in such circumstances; |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d d. the third-country national has expressly chosen to represent themselves, in accordance with national law, and has declined the assistance of a legal adviser; |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d e. the appeal is lodged solely to delay enforcement of the return decision, and the competent authorities conclude that legal assistance would not materially alter the outcome or the third-country national has a history of repeated, successive, or serial appeals against return decisions that have been previously rejected as unfounded or abusive; |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d f. the third-country national has absconded, failed to appear at required appointments, or cannot be located, and national law provides that legal assistance may be restricted in such cases; |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d g. the third-country national refuses to cooperate with the steps necessary for readmission or removal, including contact with consular authorities or completion of necessary documentation; |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d h. the third-country national engages in violent, threatening, or disorderly behaviour against staff, legal advisers, or other persons involved in the return procedure, and national law provides consequences including restriction of access to legal assistance; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d i. the third-country national has failed, without justified reason, to agree to or to comply with a repayment arrangement for the costs of legal assistance or representation previously provided at public expense, where national law allows such costs to be recovered and where the competent authorities have offered a reasonable repayment schedule. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d j. legal assistance and representation are already being provided by consular services or accredited lawyers appointed or funded by the third-country national’s country of origin; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d k. other measures or consequences than the abovementioned, where provided for in national law. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d l. identity fraud, destruction of documents, or the provision of false information has been established, and national law allows exclusion or limitation of publicly funded legal assistance in such cases; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5 a. Where an appeal is lodged, the competent judicial authority may, where possible in a preliminary ruling, determine whether the appeal has no tangible prospect of success or is abusive for the purposes of paragraph 5(b) of this Article. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5 b. Member States shall provide for the recovery of costs for legal assistance where a judicial authority has determined that the appeal was abusive or had no tangible prospect of success. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5 c. the third-country national fails to comply with the obligation to disclose his or her financial situation as laid down in paragraph 6. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The third-country national requesting free legal assistance and representation shall disclose his or her financial situation. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The third-country national requesting free legal assistance and representation shall disclose his or her financial situation. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The third-country national requesting free legal assistance and representation shall disclose his or her financial situation. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The third-country national requesting free legal assistance and representation shall disclose his or her financial situation. | 6. The third-country national requesting free legal assistance and representation shall, in order to allow the competent authorities to assess the fulfilment of the condition under paragraph 5(a), disclose his or her financial situation. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The third-country national requesting free legal assistance and representation shall disclose his or her financial situation. | 6. The third-country national requesting legal assistance and representation shall disclose his or her financial situation. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may: | deleted |
| a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation, provided that such limits are not arbitrary and do not unduly restrict access to free legal assistance and representation nor undermine the exercise of the right of defence; | |
| b. request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred where the third-country national’s financial situation has improved during the return procedure or where the decision to provide free legal assistance and representation was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the third-country national; | |
| c. provide that, as regards fees and other costs and reimbursements, the treatment of third-country nationals shall be equal to, but not more favourable than, the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may: | 7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may impose monetary limits or time limits on the provision of free legal counselling, assistance and representation, provided that such limits are not arbitrary and do not unduly restrict access to free legal counselling, assistance and representation. |
As regards fees and other costs, the treatment of applicants shall not be less favourable than the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may: | 7. Member States may: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may: | 7. Member States may: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may: | 7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, in line with rules applicable to own nationals and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may: | 7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States shall: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may: | 7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied children, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. With the exception of any assistance provided to unaccompanied minors, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may: | 7. With the exception of any assistance provided to vulnerable persons, and in line with the respect of the essence of the right to an effective remedy, Member States may: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation, provided that such limits are not arbitrary and do not unduly restrict access to free legal assistance and representation nor undermine the exercise of the right of defence; | a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation, |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation, provided that such limits are not arbitrary and do not unduly restrict access to free legal assistance and representation nor undermine the exercise of the right of defence; | a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of legal assistance and representation. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation, provided that such limits are not arbitrary and do not unduly restrict access to free legal assistance and representation nor undermine the exercise of the right of defence; | a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation, provided that such limits are not arbitrary and do not unduly restrict access to free legal assistance and representation nor undermine the exercise of the right of defence; | a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation, provided that such limits are not arbitrary or discriminatory and do not unduly restrict access to free legal assistance and representation nor undermine the exercise of the right of defence; |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation, provided that such limits are not arbitrary and do not unduly restrict access to free legal assistance and representation nor undermine the exercise of the right of defence; | a. impose monetary or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation, provided that such limits are not arbitrary and do not unduly restrict access to free legal assistance and representation; |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred where the third-country national’s financial situation has improved during the return procedure or where the decision to provide free legal assistance and representation was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the third-country national; | b. Member States may request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred for free legal assistance and representation where the third-country national’s financial situation has improved during the return procedure, where the decision to grant such assistance or representation was taken on the basis of false or incomplete information provided by the third-country national, or where any of the conditions for exclusion or termination of free legal assistance and representation, as set out in paragraph 5, subsequently apply. Member States may further seek reimbursement or contribution to such costs from the third-country national’s country of origin, including through its consular services, where appropriate under national law or bilateral arrangements |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred where the third-country national’s financial situation has improved during the return procedure or where the decision to provide free legal assistance and representation was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the third-country national; | b. request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred where the third-country national’s financial situation has improved during the return procedure or where the decision to provide free legal assistance and representation was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the third-country national. Member States shall be able to recover the full costs of legal assistance where it is established that the appeal was abusive or lodged in bad faith; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred where the third-country national’s financial situation has improved during the return procedure or where the decision to provide free legal assistance and representation was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the third-country national; | b. request from citizenship or origin country as well as from third-country national total reimbursement of costs incurred in reference to the return procedure, including free legal assistance and representation; |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred where the third-country national’s financial situation has improved during the return procedure or where the decision to provide free legal assistance and representation was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the third-country national; | b. request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred where the decision to provide free legal assistance and representation was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the third-country national; |
The reimbursement of costs is an unreasonable burden on a returnee unless the granting of free legal assistance was based on false information provided by the returnee.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred where the third-country national’s financial situation has improved during the return procedure or where the decision to provide free legal assistance and representation was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the third-country national; | b. request total or partial reimbursement of any costs incurred where the third-country national’s financial situation has significantly improved during the return procedure or where the decision to provide free legal assistance and representation was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the third-country national; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. provide that, as regards fees and other costs and reimbursements, the treatment of third-country nationals shall be equal to, but not more favourable than, the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. provide that, as regards fees and other costs and reimbursements, the treatment of third-country nationals shall be equal to, but not more favourable than, the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance. | deleted |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. provide that, as regards fees and other costs and reimbursements, the treatment of third-country nationals shall be equal to, but not more favourable than, the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance. | c. provide that, as regards fees and other costs and reimbursements, the treatment of third-country nationals shall not receive more favourable treatment than, the treatment generally given to their nationals, without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to apply higher fees or require reimbursement in accordance with national law |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. provide that, as regards fees and other costs and reimbursements, the treatment of third-country nationals shall be equal to, but not more favourable than, the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance. | c. provide that, as regards fees and other costs and reimbursements, third-country nationals shall not receive more favourable treatment that are offered to their nationals, without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to apply higher fees or reimbursement accordingly to national law. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. provide that, as regards fees and other costs and reimbursements, the treatment of third-country nationals shall be equal to, but not more favourable than, the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance. | c. As regards fees and other costs, the treatment of returnees shall not be less favourable than the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 a. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which requests for free legal assistance and representation are filed and processed, or apply existing rules for domestic claims of a similar nature, provided that those rules do not render access to free legal assistance and representation excessively difficult or impossible, particularly with regard to the provisions of paragraph 9 read in conjunction with the timeline for lodging an appeal at first instance laid down in Article 27, paragraph 1. |
Given the very tight timeframe for lodging an appeal, the decision whether or not to grant legal aid must be taken very quickly to allow the provision in paragraph 9 to be meaningful.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 a. Member States shall provide that, as regards access, fees and other costs and reimbursements, the treatment of third-country nationals shall be equal to the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 a. Member States shall ensure that free or subsidised legal assistance provided pursuant to this Article shall be equal to, but not more favourable than, the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which requests for free legal assistance and representation are filed and processed, or apply existing rules for domestic claims of a similar nature, provided that those rules do not render access to free legal assistance and representation excessively difficult or impossible. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which requests for free legal assistance and representation are filed and processed, or apply existing rules for domestic claims of a similar nature, provided that those rules do not render access to free legal assistance and representation excessively difficult or impossible. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which requests for free legal assistance and representation are filed and processed, or apply existing rules for domestic claims of a similar nature, provided that those rules do not render access to free legal assistance and representation excessively difficult or impossible. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which requests for free legal assistance and representation are filed and processed, or apply existing rules for domestic claims of a similar nature, provided that those rules do not render access to free legal assistance and representation excessively difficult or impossible. | 8. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which requests for legal assistance and representation are filed and processed, or apply existing rules for domestic claims of a similar nature. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which requests for free legal assistance and representation are filed and processed, or apply existing rules for domestic claims of a similar nature, provided that those rules do not render access to free legal assistance and representation excessively difficult or impossible. | 8. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which requests for free legal assistance and representation are filed and processed, or apply existing rules for domestic claims of a similar nature. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which requests for free legal assistance and representation are filed and processed, or apply existing rules for domestic claims of a similar nature, provided that those rules do not render access to free legal assistance and representation excessively difficult or impossible. | 8. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules governing the manner in which free legal assistance and representation operate or apply existing rules, provided that those rules do not render access to free legal assistance and representation excessively difficult or impossible. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation is taken by an authority which is not a judicial authority on the grounds that the appeal is considered to have no tangible prospect of success or to be abusive, the applicant shall have the right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority against that decision. For that purpose, the applicant shall be entitled to request free legal assistance and representation. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation is taken by an authority which is not a judicial authority on the grounds that the appeal is considered to have no tangible prospect of success or to be abusive, the applicant shall have the right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority against that decision. For that purpose, the applicant shall be entitled to request free legal assistance and representation. | deleted |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation is taken by an authority which is not a judicial authority on the grounds that the appeal is considered to have no tangible prospect of success or to be abusive, the applicant shall have the right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority against that decision. For that purpose, the applicant shall be entitled to request free legal assistance and representation. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation is taken by an authority which is not a judicial authority on the grounds that the appeal is considered to have no tangible prospect of success or to be abusive, the applicant shall have the right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority against that decision. For that purpose, the applicant shall be entitled to request free legal assistance and representation. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation is taken by an authority which is not a judicial authority on the grounds that the appeal is considered to have no tangible prospect of success or to be abusive, the applicant shall have the right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority against that decision. For that purpose, the applicant shall be entitled to request free legal assistance and representation. | 9. Where free legal assistance and representation is reduced, the applicant shall have the right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority against that decision. For that purpose, the applicant shall be entitled to free legal assistance and representation. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation is taken by an authority which is not a judicial authority on the grounds that the appeal is considered to have no tangible prospect of success or to be abusive, the applicant shall have the right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority against that decision. For that purpose, the applicant shall be entitled to request free legal assistance and representation. | 9. Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation is taken by an authority which is not a judicial authority on the grounds that the appeal is considered to have no tangible prospect of success or to be abusive, the applicant shall have the right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority against that decision. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Member States may provide for free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Member States may provide for free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Member States may provide for free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Member States may provide for free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law. | 10. Member States shall provide for free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law. Legal assistance and representation during the administrative procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the preparation of the statements and documents required under national law during the administrative procedure, and, in the case of a personal interview, participation therein before the competent authorities, as well as the preparation of the appeal or administrative review. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Member States may provide for free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law. | 10. Member States may provide for legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure in accordance with national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) before a competent judicial authority. | 1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10, Article 11, Article 12(2) and Article 14 before a competent judicial authority. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) before a competent judicial authority. | 1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 22 and Article 29 before a competent judicial authority. |
The decisions to impose administrative penalties under Article 22 and the decision to detain the person under Article 29 must also be subject to an effect remedy. If such measures are taken against an EU citizen by the State, that citizen would always enjoy the right to an effective remedy
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) before a competent judicial authority. | 1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7(1), Article 10 and Article 12(2) before the judicial authority competent according to national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) before a competent judicial authority. | 1. The third-country national concerned shall be afforded an effective remedy to challenge the decisions taken under this Regulation before a competent judicial authority. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 a. Without prejudice to the time limits referred to in Article 27(1) of this Regulation, where a return decision referred to in Article 7 is issued in the same act as, or together with, a decision rejecting an application for international protection pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, Member States shall ensure that any challenge to the return decision is lodged jointly with the effective remedy against the decision rejecting the application for international protection, before the same judicial authority. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 b. In cases not covered by paragraph 2, where a decision referred to in paragraph 1 is issued together with other decisions under this Regulation, such as an entry ban pursuant to Article 10, Member States shall ensure that the right to an effective remedy is exercised in a single, consolidated judicial proceeding to examine all relevant factual and legal grounds. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both points of facts and points of law. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both points of facts and points of law. | 2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full examination of both points of facts and points of law, including compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both points of facts and points of law. | 2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full examination of both points of facts and points of law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both points of facts and points of law. | 2. The effective remedy shall provide for an examination of both points of facts and points of law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The effective remedy shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both points of facts and points of law. | 2. The effective remedy shall provide for an examination of both points of facts and points of law. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States shall ensure that compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement is verified by the competent judicial authority, at the request of the third-country national or ex officio. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States shall ensure that compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement is verified by the competent judicial authority, at the request of the third-country national or ex officio. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States shall ensure that compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement is verified by the competent judicial authority, at the request of the third-country national or ex officio. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States shall ensure that compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement is verified by the competent judicial authority, at the request of the third-country national or ex officio. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States shall ensure that compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement is verified by the competent judicial authority, at the request of the third-country national or ex officio. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States shall ensure that compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement is verified by the competent judicial authority, at the request of the third-country national or ex officio. | 3. When the third-country national has initiated proceedings against the enforcement of a return decision or removal order, the court or tribunal may ex-officio verify, when material in the file suggests that the principle of non-refoulement might be undermined, whether the authorities of the Member State are in compliance with the obligations set out in Article 12(3) in order to respect the principle of non-refoulement. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States shall ensure that compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement is verified by the competent judicial authority, at the request of the third-country national or ex officio. | 3. Member States shall ensure that compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement is verified by the competent judicial authority. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Member States shall ensure that compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement is verified by the competent judicial authority, at the request of the third-country national or ex officio. | 3. Member States shall ensure that compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement is verified by the competent judicial authority, at the request of the third-country national. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Where a third-country national has been the subject of a decision rejecting an application for international protection, that person may not, in an appeal against a return decision under Article 7 or a removal order under Article 12, appeal that decision on the grounds that removal to the country of origin would violate the principle of non-refoulement if that risk was already assessed and dismissed in the decision for international protection. |
The APR regulates the procedure through which an asylum claim is examined and this procedure includes an assessment of the risk of refoulement. Appeals on these grounds must therefore not be possible in an appeal against a return decision, as a decision on refoulement has already been concluded.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article26a | |
| Limitation on the scope of appeal concerning the principle of non-refoulement | |
| 1. Notwithstanding the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 26, where a third-country national has been the subject of a decision rejecting an application for international protection which has become executory, that person may not, in an appeal against a return decision under Article 7 or a removal order under Article 12(2), challenge that decision on the grounds that removal to the country of origin would violate the principle of non-refoulement, if that risk was already assessed and dismissed in the decision for international protection in accordance with Article 55 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. The lodging of a renewed application shall be the sole procedure for the examination of any new elements or findings that have arisen or been presented by the applicant which are relevant to the assessment of a potential violation of the principle of non-refoulement. |
To ensure procedural clarity, the assessment of non-refoulement must have a single, designated forum. Where an asylum claim was made, the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR) is the exclusive framework for assessing protection needs. The safeguards in this Regulation apply only where no such prior assessment was conducted under the APR. This clear division of procedures prevents duplication, avoids re-litigation of the same issues, and guarantees legal certainty for all parties.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days. | 1. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days. | 1. For the purpose of applying this Regulation, the period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days. | 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in that Article, providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance in relation to decisions taken under Article, 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), shall be between a minimum of two weeks and a maximum of one month. |
This is aligned with Article 67(7)(b) APR. To ensure that the returnee does not have a shorter deadline to appeal the return decision than to appeal the refusal of asylum, it is imperative that Member States align their deadlines with the maximum duration permitted under APR. It also aligns better with the period within which a returnee can accept the return decision and leave.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days. | 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall ensure that their national law lays down sufficiently short time limits to ensure that the competent judicial authority of first instance can examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) as quickly as possible, providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 3 days. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days. | 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for third country nationals to appeal a return decision and the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall be of minimum 14 days and maximum of 2 months. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days. | 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority to examine the decisions taken under this Regulation, providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall be at least 15 days. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days. | 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial or administrative authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days. | 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 7 days. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate and complete examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 14 days. | 1. For the purpose of ensuring the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, Member States shall lay down in their national law reasonable time limits for the competent judicial authority of first instance to examine the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an adequate examination of the appeal. The period for lodging an appeal before a judicial authority of first instance shall not exceed 5 days. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Time limits referred to in paragraph 1 shall start to run from the date when any of the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) are notified to the third-country national, or from another date to be determined by national law, notably when the third-country national concerned has absconded. | 2. Time limits referred to in paragraph 1 shall start to run from the date when any of the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10, Article 11, Article 12(2) and Article 14, are notified to the third-country national. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Time limits referred to in paragraph 1 shall start to run from the date when any of the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) are notified to the third-country national, or from another date to be determined by national law, notably when the third-country national concerned has absconded. | 2. Where the third-country national has exercised their right to an effective remedy before a competent judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27, the judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the removal should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Time limits referred to in paragraph 1 shall start to run from the date when any of the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) are notified to the third-country national, or from another date to be determined by national law, notably when the third-country national concerned has absconded. | 2. Time limits referred to in paragraph 1 shall start to run from the date when any of the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) are notified to the third-country national, or from another date to be determined by national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Time limits referred to in paragraph 1 shall start to run from the date when any of the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) are notified to the third-country national, or from another date to be determined by national law, notably when the third-country national concerned has absconded. | 2. Time limits referred to in paragraph 1 shall start to run from the date when any of the decisions referred to in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) are notified to the third-country national, or from another date to be determined by national law. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. Where the return concerns third-country nationals posing a security risk under Article 16, the time limit shall be as short as possible and shall not exceed 48 hours. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Where a return decision is based on, or issued in, the same act as a decision refusing or ending the legal stay, the time limits to appeal the return decision may be those laid down in national law for appealing a decision ending or refusing legal stay. | deleted |
This provides no legal certainty. To provide a minimum degree of harmonisation, the period for lodging an appeal should be laid down in EU law. It should be sufficient to allow the returnee to effectively exercise her right to a remedy and it should not be open to revision by way of national law.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Where an entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision. | 4. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Where an entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision. | 4. Where an entry ban and/or decision ordering the removal is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, they shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban and/or decision ordering the removal is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Where an entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision. | 4. Where a removal order and/or entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where a removal order or an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Where an entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision. | 4. Where an entry ban or decision ordering the removal is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Where an entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision. | 4. Where an entry ban or a removal order is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, they shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Where an entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision. | 4. Where an entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial or administrative authority and within the same proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Where an entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision or is the only decision to be challenged, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision. | 4. Where an entry ban is issued together with a return decision as referred to in Article 7, it shall be appealed against jointly with that return decision, before the same judicial authority and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time limits. Where an entry ban is issued separately from the return decision, it may be appealed against separately. The time limits to bring such separate judicial proceedings shall be the same as those laid down in case where the entry ban is jointly appealed against with the return decision. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Where the documents are not submitted in due time, as determined by the competent judicial authority, in the event that the translation is to be provided by the applicant, or where documents are not submitted in time for the judicial authority to ensure that they are translated in the event that the translation is ensured by the competent judicial authority, the judicial authority may refuse to take those documents into account. | deleted |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Where the documents are not submitted in due time, as determined by the competent judicial authority, in the event that the translation is to be provided by the applicant, or where documents are not submitted in time for the judicial authority to ensure that they are translated in the event that the translation is ensured by the competent judicial authority, the judicial authority may refuse to take those documents into account. | deleted |
It is for the judicial authority to decide on the admissibility of evidence. There is no competence under EU law to determine rules on admissibility of evidence in national courts.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Where the documents are not submitted in due time, as determined by the competent judicial authority, in the event that the translation is to be provided by the applicant, or where documents are not submitted in time for the judicial authority to ensure that they are translated in the event that the translation is ensured by the competent judicial authority, the judicial authority may refuse to take those documents into account. | 5. Where the documents are not submitted in due time, as determined by the competent judicial authority, the judicial authority may refuse to take those documents into account. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Where the documents are not submitted in due time, as determined by the competent judicial authority, in the event that the translation is to be provided by the applicant, or where documents are not submitted in time for the judicial authority to ensure that they are translated in the event that the translation is ensured by the competent judicial authority, the judicial authority may refuse to take those documents into account. | 5. Where the documents are not submitted in due time, as determined by the competent judicial authority, in the event that the translation is to be provided by the applicant, or where documents are not submitted in time for the judicial authority to ensure that they are translated in the event that the translation is ensured by the competent judicial authority, for reasons that are beyond the control of the applicant, the judicial authority may refuse to take those documents into account. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Where the documents are not submitted in due time, as determined by the competent judicial authority, in the event that the translation is to be provided by the applicant, or where documents are not submitted in time for the judicial authority to ensure that they are translated in the event that the translation is ensured by the competent judicial authority, the judicial authority may refuse to take those documents into account. | 5. Where the documents are not submitted in due time, as determined by the competent judicial or administrative authority, in the event that the translation is to be provided by the applicant, or where documents are not submitted in time for the judicial authority to ensure that they are translated in the event that the translation is ensured by the competent judicial or administrative authority, the judicial authority may refuse to take those documents into account. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5 a. In the context of the mandatory mutual recognition referred to in Article 9, the return decision issued to the third-country national may only be challenged before the competent authority of the issuing Member State. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 28 | deleted |
| Suspensive effect | |
| 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. | |
| 2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. The enforcement of the return decision shall be suspended where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | |
| 3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended unless the third-country national requests suspension and a competent judicial authority decides to grant it, taking due account of the specific circumstances of the individual case. | |
| 4. A decision on the application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision shall be taken within 48 hours. In cases involving complex issues of fact or law, that time-limit may be exceeded. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 28 | deleted |
| Suspensive effect | |
| 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. | |
| 2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. The enforcement of the return decision shall be suspended where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | |
| 3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended unless the third-country national requests suspension and a competent judicial authority decides to grant it, taking due account of the specific circumstances of the individual case. | |
| 4. A decision on the application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision shall be taken within 48 hours. In cases involving complex issues of fact or law, that time-limit may be exceeded. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. | 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) may upon request or ex officio be suspended, for the period for lodging the appeal in accordance with Article 27, or the period pending the outcome of the appeal, by the competent judicial authority of first instance. Member States may under national law determine whether the suspension shall be granted upon request or ex officio. This shall be without prejudice to provisions in national law according to which first instance remedies have a suspensive effect. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. | 1. All effects of the return decision shall be automatically suspended until the time limit within which third-country nationals can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority referred to in Article 27 has expired. If an appeal is lodged, the enforcement of the return decision shall be automatically suspended during the examination of the appeal, including any subsequent appeal, and until the applicant has been notified of the final decision on the appeal. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. | 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to this Regulation shall not be suspended. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. | 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) may upon request of the third-country national exercising his or her right to an effective remedy be suspended, provided that he or she demonstrates, on the basis of credible, objective and up-to-date evidence, the execution of the return decision would expose them to a concrete and individual risk of serious harm in the country of return. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. | 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall not be suspended by the third-country national exercising his or her right to an effective remedy, unless the person concerned demonstrates, on the basis of credible, objective and up-to-date evidence, the execution of the return decision would expose them to a concrete and individual risk of serious harm in the country of return. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. | 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired, except where serious grounds of public or national security justify not granting automatic suspensive effect. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. | 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10, Article 11, Article 12(2) and Article 14 shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority referred to in Article 27 has expired and, when such right has been exercised within the time limit, until the resolution of the appeal. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. | 1. The enforcement of the decisions issued pursuant to Article 7, Article 10 and Article 12(2) shall be suspended until the time limit within which returnees can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired, and, where such right has been exercised within the time-limit, pending the outcome of the remedy. |
Aligned with Article 68(2) APR. The suspensive effect must be in place until the Court has ruled on the requested remedy. This will facilitate the work of the Court and reduce bureaucratic burden for the returnees, their lawyers and national administrations.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 a. In the assessment of this request, the competent authorities may rely on an existing thorough assessment of all relevant circumstances in previous stages of the return procedure, and where relevant, the asylum procedure. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 a. All subsequent appeals allowed in national law should have suspensive effect. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. The enforcement of the return decision shall be suspended where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. The enforcement of the return decision shall be suspended where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. The enforcement of the return decision shall be suspended where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. The enforcement of the return decision shall be suspended where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | deleted |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. The enforcement of the return decision shall be suspended where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | deleted |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. The enforcement of the return decision shall be suspended where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | deleted |
This is an unnecessary bureaucratic step which only confuses the decision on the merits of the return decision, and a possible decision on suspending enforcement of the return decision while the Court decides on the merits of the return decision.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. The enforcement of the return decision shall be suspended where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. The enforcement of the return decision shall be suspended where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | 2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. The enforcement of the return decision may be suspended where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement, unless the third-country national poses a security risk. In such cases, the judicial authority may authorise the transfer of the third-country national to a country in which the national resided before entering the territory of the Union or to a third country with which the European Union or the Member State has concluded a transfer agreement. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a judicial authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. The enforcement of the return decision shall be suspended where there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. | 2. Third-country nationals shall be granted the right to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return decision before the time limit within which they can exercise their right to an effective remedy before a competent judicial or administrative authority of first instance referred to in Article 27 has expired. A judicial or administrative authority shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the enforcement of the return decision should be suspended pending the outcome of the remedy. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended unless the third-country national requests suspension and a competent judicial authority decides to grant it, taking due account of the specific circumstances of the individual case. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended unless the third-country national requests suspension and a competent judicial authority decides to grant it, taking due account of the specific circumstances of the individual case. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended unless the third-country national requests suspension and a competent judicial authority decides to grant it, taking due account of the specific circumstances of the individual case. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended unless the third-country national requests suspension and a competent judicial authority decides to grant it, taking due account of the specific circumstances of the individual case. | deleted |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended unless the third-country national requests suspension and a competent judicial authority decides to grant it, taking due account of the specific circumstances of the individual case. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended unless the third-country national requests suspension and a competent judicial authority decides to grant it, taking due account of the specific circumstances of the individual case. | 3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended unless the third-country national requests suspension and a competent judicial authority decides to grant it, taking due account of the specific circumstances of the individual case. | 3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged,the enforcement of a return decision shall not be suspended unless the third-country national requests suspension and a competent judicial authority decides to grant it, taking due account of the specific circumstances of the individual case. | 3. Where a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision is lodged, the removal shall not be suspended. This shall be without prejudice to provisions in national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. A decision on the application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision shall be taken within 48 hours. In cases involving complex issues of fact or law, that time-limit may be exceeded. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. A decision on the application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision shall be taken within 48 hours. In cases involving complex issues of fact or law, that time-limit may be exceeded. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. A decision on the application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision shall be taken within 48 hours. In cases involving complex issues of fact or law, that time-limit may be exceeded. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. A decision on the application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision shall be taken within 48 hours. In cases involving complex issues of fact or law, that time-limit may be exceeded. | deleted |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. A decision on the application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision shall be taken within 48 hours. In cases involving complex issues of fact or law, that time-limit may be exceeded. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. A decision on the application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision shall be taken within 48 hours. In cases involving complex issues of fact or law, that time-limit may be exceeded. | deleted |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. A decision on the application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision shall be taken within 48 hours. In cases involving complex issues of fact or law, that time-limit may be exceeded. | 4. The competent judicial authorities shall endeavour to take a decision on an application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision referred to in paragraph 3 within 48 hours. In cases involving complex issues of fact or law, that time-limit may be exceeded. |
The second sentence of this paragraph makes it clear that in many cases 48 hours will not be sufficient to reach a decision (and possibly not practical for the Court or tribunal concerned). In any case, under the principle of subsidiarity and the separation of powers, it is not the role of the EU legislature to establish deadlines for national courts.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. A decision on the application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision shall be taken within 48 hours. In cases involving complex issues of fact or law, that time-limit may be exceeded. | 4. A decision on the application for suspension of the enforcement of a return decision shall be taken within 24 hours. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| V PREVENTION OF ABSCONDING AND DETENTION | V DETENTION |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Grounds for detention | Exceptional grounds for detention as a last resort measure |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate. | 1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation only as a last resort, on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate, reasonable and necessary to effect the return. Member States shall assess if other sufficient but less coercive measures, including the measures set out in Article 31, can be applied effectively. If so, detention shall not be applied. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate. | 1. Member States may, as a measure of last resort, detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is necessary and proportionate. Before detaining a returnee, Member States shall consider alternatives to detention in accordance with Article 31. |
Detention should remain a measure of last resort. Alternatives to detention - as the name suggests - should be considered before detention is ordered.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate. | 1. Detention of a third-country national shall be permitted only in exceptional circumstances, where it is necessary and proportionate, and strictly limited to cases where there is a risk of absconding of an individual who poses a concrete, imminent, evidence-based and serious security threat. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate. | 1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is a proportionate measure of last resort. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate. | 1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate. | 1. Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment of each case. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 a. The existence of a risk of absconding in regard to a third-country national who poses a concrete, imminent, evidence-based and serious security threat shall be determined on the basis of an individual assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, an evaluation of the proportionality and only on the basis of an exhaustive list of objective criteria laid down in national legislation. The risk of absconding shall not be automatically presumed on the basis of the third country national's past conduct. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 b. Unless alternatives to detention pursuant to Article 31 can be applied, Member States may detain a third-country national pursuant to this Directive on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and only in so far as detention is proportionate, necessary and as a last resort. Minors shall never be detained as detention is never a proportionate measure in the best interest of the child. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of preparing the return or carrying out the removal. | 2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of preparing the return or carrying out the removal and only if other alternative measures to detention under Article 31 are not applicable. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of preparing the return or carrying out the removal. | 2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of preparing the return or carrying out the removal and when it is not possible to apply the measures set out in Article 31. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of preparing the return or carrying out the removal. | 2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of return, including for preparing the return, readmission, and carrying out the removal. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national for the purpose of preparing the return or carrying out the removal. | 2. Member States may keep a third-country national in detention in order to prepare the return or execute the removal. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. A third-country national may only be detained based on one or more of the following grounds for detention: | deleted |
| a. risk of absconding determined in accordance with Article 30; | |
| b. the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of the return or the removal process; | |
| c. the third-country national poses security risks in accordance with Article 16; | |
| d. to determine or verify his or her identity or nationality; | |
| e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. A third-country national may only be detained based on one or more of the following grounds for detention: | 3. A third-country national may be detained based on one or more of the following grounds for detention, without prejudice to other grounds provided for by national law: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. risk of absconding determined in accordance with Article 30; | a. risk of absconding determined in accordance with Article 21A; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a a. violation of Member State law; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of the return or the removal process; | b. the third-country national deliberately hampers the preparation of the return or the removal process; |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of the return or the removal process; | b. the third-country national has deliberately obstructed the preparation of the return procedure; |
It is not clear how a third country national can avoid the return without absconding, which is covered below. Removal forms part of the return procedure.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of the return or the removal process; | b. the third-country national avoids or hampers readmission, the preparation of the return, or the removal; |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. the third-country national poses security risks in accordance with Article 16; | c. the third-country national poses a threat to internal security in accordance with Article 16; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. the third-country national poses security risks in accordance with Article 16; | c. the third-country national poses a genuine and present threat to internal security; |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. to determine or verify his or her identity or nationality; | deleted |
Given the obligation on the returnee to provide biometrics under the Eurodac Regulation, the obligation on the returnee to provide all documentation that identifies him/her and the fact that EU law already provides for a screening procedure to identify irregular arrivals, it is not proportionate to detain someone to verify identity or nationality. All appropriate steps will already have been taken to identify the person.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. to determine or verify his or her identity or nationality; | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. to determine or verify his or her identity or nationality; | d. to determine or verify his or her identity, nationality or age; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| da. failure by the third-country national to comply with the obligation to cooperate; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d a. lack of cooperating in obtaining travel or identity documents; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| db. if detention is likely to facilitate the implementation and effective enforcement of the return procedure; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31. | e. non-compliance with the obligations under Article 21, paragraph 2, points (a) to (c), (e), (fa) and (i) to (ka), including lack of cooperation in obtaining travel documents; |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31. | e. non-compliance, on more than one occasion, with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31. | e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 21 and Article 31. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31. | e. deliberate non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31. | e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 8(3) and 31. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31. | e. non-compliance with the measures ordered pursuant to Article 31 or 21. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e a. any other relevant factor that indicates the detention is necessary to ensure timely and effective return, as determined by Member States, and in accordance with national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e a. other relevant grounds related to return, provided for in national law, to ensure effective return procedures, that are necessary and proportionate. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e a. to return the third-country national to the issuing Member State pursuant to Article 9; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e b. any other duly justified reason in accordance with national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Member States may define other grounds for detention in national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Those detention grounds shall be laid down in national law. | deleted |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Those detention grounds shall be laid down in national law. | deleted |
The grounds for detention are established in paragraph 3. As this is a Regulation, there is no need to transpose these grounds into national law.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Those detention grounds shall be laid down in national law. | 4. Those detention grounds shall also be laid down in national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Those detention grounds shall be laid down in national law. | 4. Any grounds for detention shall be laid down in national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | 5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be communicated orally or in writing to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand, including with the use of interpretation or translation services. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | 5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. The decision may be machine translated. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | 5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies, in accordance with Article 26. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be supposed to understand. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | 5. Detention shall be ordered by judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | 5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national orally or in writing in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. | 5. Detention shall be ordered by judicial authorities. Detention shall be ordered by a written decision giving the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based as well as information about available legal remedies. The decision shall be notified to the third-country national in a language that the third-country national understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account any visible signs, statements or behaviour related to, or made or shown by, the third-country national indicating that he or she is a vulnerable person. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account any visible signs, statements or behaviour related to, or made or shown by, the third-country national indicating that he or she is a vulnerable person. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account any visible signs, statements or behaviour related to, or made or shown by, the third-country national indicating that he or she is a vulnerable person. | deleted |
This paragraph would run counter to the very spirit of the Regulation, since, as a matter of principle, a person who has entered the territory of the Union irregularly is very likely to be in a situation of economic and social vulnerability. Vulnerability cannot therefore constitute a criterion excluding the possibility of detention. On the other hand, making detention a rule rather than an exception can also serve as a deterrent against irregular entry into the territory of the Union, while ensuring the protection and supervision of the third-country national pending the decision in their regard.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account any visible signs, statements or behaviour related to, or made or shown by, the third-country national indicating that he or she is a vulnerable person. | 6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account whether the third-country national is a vulnerable person. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account any visible signs, statements or behaviour related to, or made or shown by, the third-country national indicating that he or she is a vulnerable person. | 6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account whether the third-country national is a vulnerable person. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account any visible signs, statements or behaviour related to, or made or shown by, the third-country national indicating that he or she is a vulnerable person. | 6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account any visible signs, statements or behaviour related to, or made or shown by, the third-country national indicating that he or she is a vulnerable person. Where vulnerability is established, Article 6a applies. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account any visible signs, statements or behaviour related to, or made or shown by, the third-country national indicating that he or she is a vulnerable person. | 6. When detaining a third-country national pursuant to paragraph 3, Member States shall take into account any visible signs, statements or behaviour related to, or made or shown by, the third-country national indicating that he or she is a vulnerable person. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 a. Member States may order detention upon release from prison for the purpose of return procedures when a third-country national is subject to a removal order under Article 12, provided that detention is justified based on relevant risk factors. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 a. Member States shall not apply or shall cease to apply detention when a third-country national is identified as a person in a vulnerable situation in accordance with Article 6. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 30 | deleted |
| Risk of absconding | |
| 1. There is a risk of absconding in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the following criteria is fulfilled: | |
| a. the third-country national has moved without authorisation to the territory of another Member State or other Member States, including following a transit through a third country, or attempts to do so; | |
| b. the third-country national is subject to a return decision or enforcing decision issued by a Member State other than the one on the territory of which the person is currently staying illegally, including as detected through the alerts entered in the Schengen Information System pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1860; | |
| c. non-compliance with the measures pursuant to Article 23. | |
| 2. In cases not covered by paragraph 1, the risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case and where one of the following criteria regarding the third-country national concerned is met: | |
| a. lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address; | |
| b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures; | |
| c. non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13; | |
| d. non-compliance with the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the procedures pursuant to this Regulation, as referred to in Article 21(2), points (a) to (k); | |
| e. when departure is imminent and there are serious reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2), point (l); | |
| f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure; | |
| g. opposing the return procedure violently; | |
| h. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. There is a risk of absconding in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the following criteria is fulfilled: | 1. The risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case, including any vulnerabilities. Only the following criteria may indicate a risk of absconding: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. There is a risk of absconding in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the following criteria is fulfilled: | 1. There is a risk of absconding, in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, where one of the following criteria regarding the illegally staying third-country national concerned is fulfilled: |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. There is a risk of absconding in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the following criteria is fulfilled: | 1. The existence of a risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an assessment of the circumstances of the individual case, on the basis of the following criteria: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the third-country national has moved without authorisation to the territory of another Member State or other Member States, including following a transit through a third country, or attempts to do so; | a. the third-country national has moved without authorisation to the territory of another Member State or other Member States during the return procedure, including following a transit through a third country, or attempts to do so; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the third-country national has moved without authorisation to the territory of another Member State or other Member States, including following a transit through a third country, or attempts to do so; | a. the third-country national has entered or moved without authorisation to the territory of a Member State, including following a transit through a third country, or attempts to do so; |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the third-country national has moved without authorisation to the territory of another Member State or other Member States, including following a transit through a third country, or attempts to do so; | a. the returnee has moved, on more than one occasion, without authorisation to the territory of another Member State or other Member States, including following a transit through a third country; |
As the reasons why a TCN might try to move between MS can be varied, it is disproportionate to assume a risk of absconding based on a single move to another MS by the returnee.
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. the third-country national is subject to a return decision or enforcing decision issued by a Member State other than the one on the territory of which the person is currently staying illegally, including as detected through the alerts entered in the Schengen Information System pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1860; | b. the returnee explicitly expresses an intention not to comply with the return procedure; |
Moving between Member States is addressed in point a. Where a returnee explicitly indicates that she does not intend to comply with a return procedure, then this is a factor in determining a risk of absconding.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. the third-country national is subject to a return decision or enforcing decision issued by a Member State other than the one on the territory of which the person is currently staying illegally, including as detected through the alerts entered in the Schengen Information System pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1860; | b. the third-country national is subject to a return decision or enforcing decision issued by a Member State other than the one on the territory of which the person is currently staying irregularly, including as detected through the alerts entered in the Schengen Information System pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1860; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. the third-country national is subject to a return decision or enforcing decision issued by a Member State other than the one on the territory of which the person is currently staying illegally, including as detected through the alerts entered in the Schengen Information System pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1860; | b. the third-country national is subject to a return decision issued by a Member State other than the one on the territory of which the person is currently staying illegally, including as detected through the alerts entered in the Schengen Information System pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1860; |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b a. The returnee repeatedly fails to cooperate with the return authorities with regard to the provisions of Article 21, paragraph 2; |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. non-compliance with the measures pursuant to Article 23. | deleted |
The non-compliance on provisions regarding residence and/or reporting do not necessarily relate to a risk of absconding.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. non-compliance with the measures pursuant to Article 23. | c. the third-country national does not comply with one or more of the measures imposed in accordance with Article 23, paragraph 1, and Article 21, paragraph 1, or expresses or demonstrates intent to do so; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. non-compliance with the measures pursuant to Article 23. | c. serious and repeated non-compliance with the measures pursuant to Article 23; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. serious and repeated non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. expression or presumed expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures; |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. non-compliance with the obligation to return by the date on which the returnee is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. the third-country national has re-entered the territory of the Member States in breach of an existing entry ban; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. the third-country national has re-entered the territory of the Member States in violation of a valid entry ban; |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c a. opposing the return procedure violently; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c b. the third-country national has expressed an intention of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or has taken actions clearly demonstrating such an intention; |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c b. when departure is imminent and there are objective reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2), point (l). |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c b. non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c b. the third-country national has a lack of social anchoring, in particular the absence of family ties, engagement of illegal employment and insufficient means of subsistence. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c b. opposing the return procedure violently; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c c. using or attempting to purchase false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c c. the third-country national is a national of a country designated as a safe country listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c c. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c c. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c d. non-compliance with the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the procedures pursuant to this Regulation, as referred to in Article 21(2); |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c d. the third-country national has failed to comply with the obligation to leave the territory of the Member States within the period set out in Article 13; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c e. the third-country national has used false or forged documents, destroyed or otherwise disposed of such documents, used aliases with fraudulent intent, provided other false information, or otherwise fraudulently obstructed the return or readmission procedure; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c e. when departure is imminent and there are serious reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2); |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c e. the third country national is considered to be a security risk in line with Article 16. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c f. opposing the return procedure physically; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c g. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c h. lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c i. other criteria where provided for in national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. In cases not covered by paragraph 1, the risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case and where one of the following criteria regarding the third-country national concerned is met: | deleted |
| a. lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address; | |
| b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures; | |
| c. non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13; | |
| d. non-compliance with the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the procedures pursuant to this Regulation, as referred to in Article 21(2), points (a) to (k); | |
| e. when departure is imminent and there are serious reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2), point (l); | |
| f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure; | |
| g. opposing the return procedure violently; | |
| h. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. In cases not covered by paragraph 1, the risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case and where one of the following criteria regarding the third-country national concerned is met: | deleted |
| a. lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address; | |
| b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures; | |
| c. non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13; | |
| d. non-compliance with the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the procedures pursuant to this Regulation, as referred to in Article 21(2), points (a) to (k); | |
| e. when departure is imminent and there are serious reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2), point (l); | |
| f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure; | |
| g. opposing the return procedure violently; | |
| h. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban. |
Some of the provisions above have been merged into paragraph 1. However, the provision in point f already exists in relation to the obligation to cooperate. Continued failure to cooperate in point d can lead to detention. It is not, of itself, evidence of an intention to abscond. The provision in point g may well be a ground for detention, but again it does not establish a risk of absconding. In point h, given the increased length of entry bans, and the uncertainty surrounding notifications to persons of entry bans, it is not at all clear how the fact of re-entering the EU establishes a risk of absconding. Regarding point a, in the context of the reception crisis in many MS, it is disproportionate to punish returnees for not having a fixed address, and to presume it would lead to absconding.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. In cases not covered by paragraph 1, the risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case and where one of the following criteria regarding the third-country national concerned is met: | deleted |
| a. lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address; | |
| b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures; | |
| c. non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13; | |
| d. non-compliance with the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the procedures pursuant to this Regulation, as referred to in Article 21(2), points (a) to (k); | |
| e. when departure is imminent and there are serious reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2), point (l); | |
| f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure; | |
| g. opposing the return procedure violently; | |
| h. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. In cases not covered by paragraph 1, the risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case and where one of the following criteria regarding the third-country national concerned is met: | 2. In cases not covered by paragraph 1, the risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an assessment of the circumstances of the individual case. The assessment shall include one or more of the following criteria regarding the illegally staying third-country national concerned: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. In cases not covered by paragraph 1, the risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case and where one of the following criteria regarding the third-country national concerned is met: | 2. In cases not covered by paragraph 1, the risk of absconding shall be determined on the basis of an assessment of the individual case and where one of the following criteria regarding the third-country national concerned is met: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address; | deleted |
Experiencing homelessness is hereby considered sufficient grounds to be detained. Regardless of their administrative status, it should not be accepted as an automatic policy response for homeless people
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures; | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures; | b. non-compliance with the obligation to leave the territory of the Member States within the departure period as set out in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 1a, point (a) |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions clearly demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures; | b. expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures applied by virtue of this Regulation, or actions demonstrating intention not to comply with such measures; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| c. non-compliance with the obligations of a return decision until the date by which the third-country national is to leave the territory of the Member States as set out in Article 13; | c. when departure is imminent and there are reasons to believe that the third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21, paragraph 2, point (a); |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. non-compliance with the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the procedures pursuant to this Regulation, as referred to in Article 21(2), points (a) to (k); | d. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure; |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. non-compliance with the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the procedures pursuant to this Regulation, as referred to in Article 21(2), points (a) to (k); | d. non-compliance with the obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the procedures pursuant to this Regulation, as referred to in Article 21(2); |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. when departure is imminent and there are serious reasons to believe third-country national intends to violate the obligation to cooperate as set out in Article 21(2), point (l); | e. not attending return and reintegration counselling, where required by the competent authorities; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure; | f. other criteria than (a) to (e) where provided for in national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure; | f. using false or forged identity or travel documents, residence permits or visas, or documents justifying conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, refusing to hand over to the competent authorities electronic terminal equipment and any decryption agreements relating thereto in connection with the obligations laid down in Article 21, using aliases with fraudulent intent, providing other false information in an oral or written form, or otherwise fraudulently opposing the return or readmission procedure; |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| g. opposing the return procedure violently; | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| g. opposing the return procedure violently; | g. opposing the return procedure verbally or physically; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| g. opposing the return procedure violently; | g. opposing the return procedure physically; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| h. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban. | deleted |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| h. re-entering the Union in violation of a valid entry ban. | deleted |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. Member States may determine that a third-country national poses a risk of absconding on the basis of additional factors or evidence recognised under national law, insofar as these elements justify such a conclusion and contribute to ensuring the effective and timely enforcement of the return decision. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. Member States may in national law lay down additional grounds to paragraph 1 and 2. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 31 | deleted |
| Alternatives to detention | |
| 1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30. | |
| 2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures: | |
| a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances; | |
| b. the obligation to surrender identity or travel documents to the competent authorities; | |
| c. the obligation to reside in a place designated by competent authorities; | |
| d. deposit of an adequate financial guarantee; | |
| e. the use of electronic monitoring, including guarantees and procedures provided for under national law. | |
| 3. A decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 shall state the relevant reasons in fact and in law. | |
| 4. Third-country nationals shall be notified of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be informed about the consequence of non-compliance with that decision, including pursuant to Article 29(3), point (e), and the legal remedies referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article. | |
| 5. Member States shall ensure that the decisions taken in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article are reviewed speedily by a judicial authority on application by the person concerned or ex officio, and at the latest within two months. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| -1. Before applying detention, Member States shall duly assess whether alternatives to detention may be applicable. Such alternatives shall be necessary, proportionate, of limited duration and may only be applied when and as long as at least one ground for detention under Article 29 applies. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30. | 1. Member States may provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30. | 1. In case of a risk of absconding as set out in Article 30, paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States may impose alternative measures to detention in national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30. | 1. Without prejudice to the measures imposed pursuant to Article 23, Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30. | 1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall be considered before ordering detention. They shall be necessary and proportionate, taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any gender-, LGBTIQ+, age-, and trauma-related vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the objectives of the measure. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30. | 1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall primarily aim to ensure the effective and timely return of the third-country national, taking into account the assessed risk of absconding. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30. | 1. Member States shall not be prevented to impose one of the measures in this Regulation as an alternative to detention. Member States may lay down these measures in national law. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30. | 1. Prior to ordering detention, Member States shall consider whether alternative measures to detention may be ordered instead taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities pursuant to Article 6a, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30. | 1. Member States may provide for alternative measures to detention in accordance with their national law. Such measures shall be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall provide for alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures shall be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30. | 1. Member States shall provide for at least two alternative measures to detention in national law. Such measures may be ordered taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national concerned, including any vulnerabilities, and be proportionate to the level of the risk of absconding assessed in accordance with Article 30. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures: | 2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for at least two of the following measures: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures: | 2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for one or more of the following measures: |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures: | 2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for one or more of the following measures: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures: | 2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for at least the following measures: |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures: | 2. For that purpose, Member States may order any of the following measures: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide for any of the following measures: | 2. For that purpose, Member States shall provide the following measures: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances; | a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities every day; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances; | a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities as determined by national law; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances; | a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities based on the individual circumstances; |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances; | a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 7 days, based on the individual circumstances; |
As the reporting obligation is supposedly based on the individual circumstances of the returnee, it is not proportionate to insist on it occurring at least every three days.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances; | a. the obligation, in accordance with national law, to report regularly to the competent authorities; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances; | a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities at regular intervals and at least every day; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances; | a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a reasonable frequency based on the individual circumstances; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency of up to 3 days, based on the individual circumstances; | a. the obligation to regularly report to competent authorities with a frequency accordingly to national law; |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a a. community management programmes under supervision of relevant local authorities, or other designated bodies or organisations; |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| a b. sponsorship by a citizen or long-term resident; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b. the obligation to surrender identity or travel documents to the competent authorities; | b. when strictly necessary, the obligation to surrender identity or travel documents to the competent authorities; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. deposit of an adequate financial guarantee; | d. deposit of a reasonable and proportionate financial guarantee; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| d. deposit of an adequate financial guarantee; | d. deposit of a substantial financial guarantee; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. the use of electronic monitoring, including guarantees and procedures provided for under national law. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. the use of electronic monitoring, including guarantees and procedures provided for under national law. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. the use of electronic monitoring, including guarantees and procedures provided for under national law. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. the use of electronic monitoring, including guarantees and procedures provided for under national law. | e. the use of electronic monitoring, |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e. the use of electronic monitoring, including guarantees and procedures provided for under national law. | e. the use of electronic monitoring. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e a. referral to specialised services for survivors of trafficking, gender-based violence, sexual violence, LGBTIQ+ individuals, and families with children. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e a. accommodating the third-country national in a centre, only allowing him/her to leave the centre if the risk of absconding is managed. |
The exhaustive list of alternatives to detention set out in Article 31(2) is not sufficient. I therefore propose expanding the list of alternatives to detention by including measures that would be effective for transit Member States in preventing secondary movements — for example, the possibility to accommodate the third-country national in a centre and only allow him or her to leave the premises where the risk of absconding is duly managed — or by providing Member States with the flexibility to establish other alternatives in national law.
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e a. restriction of movement to designated areas or curfews for high-risk individuals. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e a. obligation to communicate, where available, an address; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e a. other alternatives where provided in national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e a. other measures where provided for in national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e b. sponsorship by a citizen or a long-term resident; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e c. community management programmes or tailored supervision; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e d. referral to individualised case management programmes; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e e. placement in community-based accommodation; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e f. supervision by community-based sponsors or civil society organisations; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e g. conditional release where that is necessary for family unity; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| e h. referral to protection services for survivors of gender-based violence, trafficking or torture, unaccompanied children, or persons with special needs as an alternative to custodial arrangements. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. Member States shall not provide for alternative measures to detention for third country nationals who pose, or are presumed to reasonably pose, a threat to public security or national security. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. A decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 shall state the relevant reasons in fact and in law. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. A decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 shall state the relevant reasons in fact and in law. | 3. A decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 shall state the relevant reasons in fact and in law and its maximum duration. Member States shall choose the least intrusive, effective measures available. In the event that it is decided not to apply any of these measures and to order detention, the third country national shall be informed with the relevant factual and legal reasons in writing. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. A decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 shall state the relevant reasons in fact and in law. | 3. A decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 shall state the relevant reasons in fact and in law as well as the maximum duration of their application. Member States shall choose the least intrusive effective measure available. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. The restrictions imposed, considered individually or cumulatively, may not amount to a situation comparable to deprivation of liberty. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Third-country nationals shall be notified of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be informed about the consequence of non-compliance with that decision, including pursuant to Article 29(3), point (e), and the legal remedies referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article. | 4. Third-country nationals shall be notified of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be informed about the consequence of non-compliance with that decision. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Third-country nationals shall be notified of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be informed about the consequence of non-compliance with that decision, including pursuant to Article 29(3), point (e), and the legal remedies referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article. | 4. Third-country nationals shall be informed of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and the consequence of non-compliance with that decision, including detention under Article 29. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Third-country nationals shall be notified of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be informed about the consequence of non-compliance with that decision, including pursuant to Article 29(3), point (e), and the legal remedies referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article. | 4. Third-country nationals shall be notified of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be informed about the consequence of non-compliance with that decision, including detention pursuant to Article 29(3). |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Third-country nationals shall be notified of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be informed about the consequence of non-compliance with that decision, including pursuant to Article 29(3), point (e), and the legal remedies referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article. | 4. Third-country nationals shall be notified in writing of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be informed about the consequence of non-compliance with that decision and the legal remedies referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Third-country nationals shall be notified of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be informed about the consequence of non-compliance with that decision, including pursuant to Article 29(3), point (e), and the legal remedies referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article. | 4. Returnees shall be notified of any decision to apply measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be informed about the consequence of non-compliance with that decision, including pursuant to Article 29(3), point (e), and the legal remedies referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Member States shall ensure that the decisions taken in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article are reviewed speedily by a judicial authority on application by the person concerned or ex officio, and at the latest within two months. | deleted |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Member States shall ensure that the decisions taken in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article are reviewed speedily by a judicial authority on application by the person concerned or ex officio, and at the latest within two months. | deleted |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Member States shall ensure that the decisions taken in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article are reviewed speedily by a judicial authority on application by the person concerned or ex officio, and at the latest within two months. | 5. Member States shall ensure that the decisions taken in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article are reviewed by a judicial authority on application by the person concerned. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Member States shall ensure that the decisions taken in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article are reviewed speedily by a judicial authority on application by the person concerned or ex officio, and at the latest within two months. | 5. Member States shall ensure that the decisions taken in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article are reviewed by a judicial authority on application by the person concerned or ex officio. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return. | 1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible, only for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled, as long as a reasonable prospect of return exists and as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return. | 1. Detention shall be maintained only for as long as is necessary to prepare or carry out the removal. It shall be terminated where the third-country national demonstrates a clear intention to cooperate with the return procedure and substantiates this intention through concrete actions. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return. | 1. Detention shall be maintained for long as necessary to carry out the return or removal. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return. | 1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return. | 1. Detention shall be maintained for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return. | 1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and only for as long as it is necessary and proportionate to ensure successful return. |
The conditions in Article 29 include hampering a return process and not complying with certain obligations. It is not possible to decide that such conditions are no longer fulfilled.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return. | 1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the grounds laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as the conditions laid down in Article 29 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful return. | 1. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible and for as long as necessary to ensure the effective and timely return of the third-country national. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When it appears that the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, detention shall cease to be justified and the third-country national shall be released. Such release shall not preclude the application of measures to prevent the risk of absconding in accordance with Article 31. | 2. When it appears that the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, the third-country national shall be released. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When it appears that the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, detention shall cease to be justified and the third-country national shall be released. Such release shall not preclude the application of measures to prevent the risk of absconding in accordance with Article 31. | 2. When it appears that the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, detention may cease to be justified and the third-country national may be released upon a decision by the competent authorities taking into account the individual circumstances of the third-country national. Such release shall not preclude the application of measures to prevent the risk of absconding in accordance with Article 31. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When it appears that the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, detention shall cease to be justified and the third-country national shall be released. Such release shall not preclude the application of measures to prevent the risk of absconding in accordance with Article 31. | 2. When it appears that the grounds laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, the third-country national shall be released from detention pursuant to this Regulation. Such release shall not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Articles 21, 23, 30, 31. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When it appears that the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, detention shall cease to be justified and the third-country national shall be released. Such release shall not preclude the application of measures to prevent the risk of absconding in accordance with Article 31. | 2. When the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, detention shall cease to be justified and the third-country national shall be released. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When it appears that the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, detention shall cease to be justified and the third-country national shall be released. Such release shall not preclude the application of measures to prevent the risk of absconding in accordance with Article 31. | 2. Where a third-country national is released on the basis of a demonstrated intention to cooperate with the return procedure, at least one alternative to detention pursuant to Article 31 shall be applied. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When it appears that the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, detention shall cease to be justified and the third-country national shall be released. Such release shall not preclude the application of measures to prevent the risk of absconding in accordance with Article 31. | 2. When it appears that the conditions laid down in Article 29 are no longer fulfilled, the third-country national may be released. Such release shall not preclude the application of measures to prevent the risk of absconding in accordance with Article 31. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries. | deleted |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries. | 3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a Member State. Where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries, detention may be applied for a longer period but shall not exceed 48 months in a Member State. |
| Where the third country national has moved to another Member State and his conduct constitutes a ground for detention as referred in Article 29(3), a new period of detention shall apply. | |
| Detention periods under other regulations or directives should not be included in calculating the maximum period of detention. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries. | 3. Duration of detention is determined by a Member State law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries. | 3. The detention shall not exceed 1 month in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 1 month. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries. | 3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months. After 6 months of detention, the return authorities shall review the return decision pursuant to Article 33, paragraph 2 . |
Detention periods should be limited and MS should consider the options open to them where a returnee cannot be returned.
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries. | 3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries, or exceptional circumstances affecting the return process in accordance with national legislation. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries. | 3. The detention should not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may however be extended for a minimum of a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries, in order to enable detention until the return is actually carried out. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries. | 3. The detention shall not exceed 3 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 3 months in a given Member State where the return procedure lasts longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries. | 3. The detention shall not exceed an initial period of 24 months. Where the return procedure is prolonged due to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, in particular a failure to comply with the obligations set out in this Regulation, this period may be extended by renewable periods of up to 12 months. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The detention shall not exceed 12 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries. | 3. The detention shall not exceed 6 months in a given Member State. Detention may be extended for a period not exceeding a further 12 months in a given Member State where the return procedure is likely to last longer owing to a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned, or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries. |
Charlie Weimers, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariusz Kamiński, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Geadis Geadi, Assita Kanko
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Detention may, after the expiry of the maximum detention period of 48 months pursuant to paragraph 3, be applied for additional periods of up to 12 months, whenever there is a risk of absconding and where a reasonable prospect of removal has emerged due to one or more of the following changes in circumstances: | |
| a. there is new significant information on the third-country national’s identity; | |
| b. travel document has been obtained, or may reasonably be presumed to be obtained due to change in circumstances; | |
| c. cooperation with the third country has improved. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. The expiry of the maximum detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Article 31. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. The expiry of the maximum detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Article 31. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. The expiry of the maximum detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Article 31. | deleted |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. The expiry of the maximum detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Article 31. | deleted |
The end of a maximum period of detention should not provide an excuse for a Member State to use alternatives to detention.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. The expiry of the maximum detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Article 31. | 4. The expiry of the maximum detention periods in accordance with paragraph 3 and 3a does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Articles 21, 23, 30, 31. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. The expiry of the maximum detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of measures in accordance with Article 31. | 4. The detention period in accordance with paragraph 3 does not preclude the application of exceptional measures in accordance with Article 31. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 a. Where a third-country national is cooperating on their return during detention, the voluntary return of the third-country national concerned shall be organised without undue delay. Detention may, where relevant, be maintained until departure to ensure effective return in respect of paragraph 3 and 3a. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers, Karlo Ressler
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 a. Member States may prolong the detention of third-country nationals identified as posing a security risk in accordance to Article 16(3)(c) for a period that exceeds the maximum duration referred to in paragraph 3. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Review of detention orders | Review of detention orders and alternatives to detention |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. | 1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every six months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio, unless the third-country national meets the conditions set out in Articles 16, 29 and 30; in that case, the review may take place only after the expiry of the minimum detention period provided for in Article 32. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. | 1. Detention shall be reviewed ex officio as prescribed in national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. | 1. Detention may be reviewed ex officio in accordance with national law. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. | 1. Without prejudice to the returnees right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 26, detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months. |
A review of a decision ordering detention cannot interfere with a returnee's right to an effective remedy.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. | 1. Detention and alternatives to detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every four weeks. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. | 1. Detention and alternatives to detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every 4 weeks ex officio. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. | 1. Detention shall be reviewed according to national law. |
François-Xavier Bellamy, Lukas Mandl, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Sander Smit, Loránt Vincze, Lena Düpont, Tomas Tobé, Rasa Juknevičienė, Jeroen Lenaers
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. | 1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time, normally every six months, either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Detention shall be reviewed at regular intervals of time and at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. | 1. Member States shall ensure that detention is reviewed at least every nine months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 a. Where a returnee has been detained for 6 months, the return authorities shall review the return decision taking into account the likelihood of return actually being carried out and in the light of Member State’s competence as referred to in Article 7, paragraph 9. |
Given that evidence has shown that the longer a returnee is in detention, the less likely that that person is to be returned, Member State's return authorities should review the return decision itself on a six-monthly basis.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months. | deleted |
Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Emma Rafowicz, Matjaž Nemec, Marco Tarquinio, Francisco Assis, Birgit Sippel, Cecilia Strada
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months. | 2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months, unless they pose a security risk in accordance with Article 16 or a risk of absconding; in that case, the review may take place only after the expiry of the minimum detention period provided for in Article 32. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months. | 2. Detention of unaccompanied children shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals as prescribed in national law, and at least every three months, or on the duly justified request of the representative pursuant to Article 20(2). |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months. | 2. Member States shall ensure that detention of unaccompanied minors is reviewed at least every three months either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time and at least every three months. | 2. Detention of unaccompanied minors shall be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals of time. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Where detention has been ordered or extended by administrative authorities, Member States shall ensure that all relevant facts, evidence and observations submitted during the proceedings are subject to judicial review, by providing that: | deleted |
| a. any judicial review of the lawfulness of detention be concluded as speedily as possible after the beginning of the detention, and no later than 15 days thereafter; or | |
| b. the third-country national concerned be granted the right to initiate proceedings by means of which the lawfulness of detention is subject to judicial review, to be concluded as speedily as possible after the launch of the relevant proceedings, and no later than 15 days thereafter. In such cases Member States shall immediately upon detention inform the third-country national concerned about the possibility of initiating such proceedings. |
Connections
The dossier, the decisions on this text and its other versions.
No connections found for this item.
Sources & citation
Where the facts on this page come from, and how to cite it.
- Data source
- Licensed CC BY 4.0.
- Retrieved
- 25 September 2026
Cite as
European Parliament (2025). “AMENDMENTS 1606 - 2015 - Draft report 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”. Text, 1 December 2025. docId LIBE-AM-781176. EU Parl Watch Research. https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/LIBE-AM-781176 (retrieved 25 September 2026). Data: EP Open Data API: document record, https://data.europarl.europa.eu/api/v2/documents/LIBE-AM-781176 (CC BY 4.0).
BibTeX
@misc{epw-text-libe-am-781176,
author = {{European Parliament}},
title = {{AMENDMENTS 1606 - 2015 - Draft report 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}},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-12-01},
howpublished = {\url{https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/LIBE-AM-781176}},
url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/LIBE-AM-781176},
urldate = {2026-09-25},
publisher = {EU Parl Watch Research},
note = {Text. docId LIBE-AM-781176. Data: EP Open Data API: document record (CC BY 4.0)}
}