The European Parliament’s political groups have tabled 2409 amendments to the draft report by Malik Azmani (Renew Europe, Dutch) on the regulation on the return of illegally staying third-country nationals in EU.
The Member States agreed on a mandate on 8 December (see EUROPE 13768/1).
While the work on the new concepts of ‘safe third countries’ and ‘safe countries of origin’ was approved on 3 December in the parliamentary committee thanks to the support of a so-called ‘Venezuela’ majority made up of the EPP, the ECR, ESN and PfE (extreme right), this scenario has not been ruled out for the draft report tabled by the Dutchman either.
The left-wing groups, such as the S&D and the Greens/EFA, have tried at their level to counter the provisions of greatest concern to them.
Elimination of ‘hubs’ for left-wing groups. The S&D Group, with around 290 amendments, focused, for example, on the definition of countries of return and return ‘hubs’, rejecting the externalisation of migration policy and the sending of people to countries with which they have no connection. The group therefore proposes to remove the possibility for Member States to conclude arrangements or agreements to this effect with third countries.
The group and its shadow rapporteur, Murielle Laurent (French), also tried to improve the provisions on mutual recognition, which contain uncertainties and which they want to keep as optional.
The S&D called as well for an independent mechanism to monitor detention conditions and proposed that priority be given to voluntary returns with reasonable deadlines (between 7 and 30 days) for third-country nationals in an irregular situation.
In addition, third-country nationals subject to a return order must be able to remain in the country while their appeal is examined. The group proposes a maximum detention period of 12 months, instead of 24 months in the Commission proposal and 18 months in the draft report, with a review of the return decision and its merits after 6 months.
The Greens/EFA Group, for its part, also deletes the possibility of setting up return hubs in third countries, as well as the provisions on compulsory mutual recognition of national return decisions. It abolishes as well the obligation to complete a European return order for each decision rendered.
The EPP stands for firmness. The EPP Group, for its part, simplifies the provisions on agreements or arrangements setting up return hubs in third countries, which “constitute a transposition of Union law for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights”.
It toughens the language on entry bans, making them more automatic and difficult to suspend, and also reduces the scope for intervention by the mechanisms responsible for checking compliance with non-refoulement or fundamental rights.
On the principle of compulsory mutual recognition, the EPP Group still claims that the return decision issued to a third-country national can only be challenged before the competent authority of the Member State of decision.
The PfEs want intra-EU ‘hubs’. For her part, the Dutch MEP of the PfE Group, Marieke Ehlers, immediately removes from the presentation of the regulation the Commission’s references to humane procedures that respect fundamental rights.
She advocates a “a common procedure for return that is firm and fair (...) to ensure that third-country nationals who do not, or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence (...) are returned without undue delay”. She also deletes the provisions requiring the competent authorities to verify compliance with the principle of non-refoulement on the basis of an individual assessment taking into account all relevant circumstances.
Unconvinced by compulsory mutual recognition, the PfE MEP proposes guaranteeing a clear division of responsibilities for the application of the right of appeal with a binding “take-back” mechanism, based on the principle that the Member State of origin retains ultimate responsibility.
Third-country nationals from so-called ‘safe countries of origin’ should not have a deadline for voluntary departure either, even though, according to the MEP, they are known to escape ‘into the wild’ more often.
Supporting return hubs in third countries, the MEP proposes as well ‘internal return hubs’ (intra-EU), i.e. a designated, closed and secure facility for housing third-country nationals.
Seize personal items. The ECR Group also deletes references to full compliance with applicable EU law or the principle of non-refoulement and fundamental rights. It specifies that the police, in order to ensure that the person subject to the return order does not abscond, may search their place of residence or other relevant premises, or search for and seize personal effects, electronic devices and other relevant items.
Link to amendments: https://aeur.eu/f/jz5 (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)