Annex A: Research questions

• Author: Eisele, Katharina
• Pages: 116-118

EPRS | European Parli amentary Re search Servic e

116

Annexes

Annex A: Research questions

Scope of the appli cation of the Direc tive

1. Concer ning the scope of t he Directive (Article 2): To what extent ar e MS making us e of the faculty

under Ar ticle 2(2)(a) and (b)?

Challeng es to the effect ive return id entified by the Co mmission

2. The Comm issio n iden tified that MS face ‘difficulties and obst acles in return procedur es to

successfully enfo rce return decisions’ (see explanatory memorandum of the r ecast prop osal, pp. 1-

2). What is t he actual scale of su ch identified challenges and what is their im pact? Co uld such impact

be quantified? Which challenges are prevalent in which MS? Which other challenges do MS fac e,

which preven t them fro m effectively enforcing return decisions?

Volu ntary Departure an d Voluntary Return

3. Which MS automatically grant a voluntary departure term? Which MS grant it only following a

request by the thir d country national? What is the average and/or maximum length of the voluntary

departure term in each MS (in law and in practice)? In which cases is this term reduced, when can it

be prolo nged a nd when is it a bolis hed (cr iteria for t he applicat ion o f Art icle 7) ? How man y ret urns

were vo luntar y depa rtures an d how many were for ced in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019?

4. Do MS or the EU provide any support in the course of voluntary or forced return process? If so,

what kind of support is provided, and with which effect? How is the post-ret urn/re integration

suppor t monitored? How many retu rnees used the pos sibility of a ssisted voluntary return? What

crite ria sho uld returnees fulfil to be able to benefit from assisted voluntary return programmes?

Which actors are involved in the implementation of the assisted voluntary return programmes?

5. What kind of returns (voluntary v. forced) are considered sustainable returns? [Th e su sta ina bility

of r eturns s hould be assessed in light o f whether retu rnees come back to t he EU irregular ly or not.]

Does it happen to MS to apprehend a per son who ha d already been r eturned earlier? If so, was the

initial return commonly a voluntary or forced one? A re any figures regarding this phenomenon

available?

6. The EP substitute impa ct assessment found vo luntary r eturn is generally mo re cost-effective,

referring t o a 2010 UNHCR study. T he substit ute impact assessment compared data fr om BE, DE, IT

and CZ. What are the costs for voluntary and forced returns in other MS?

Entry Bans

7. What criteria are used for imposing an entry ban in line with Article 11 (in both law and practice)?

Does an individual assessment of proportionality of entry ban in the specific case ta ke place? What

is the length of the entry bans imposed by MS (both in law and practice)? How many entry bans did

MS issu e in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019? How m any of th ese bans were v alid across t he Schengen

area (i.e. were reg istered in the Schengen Information System)?

8. Do ent ry bans prov e to ha ve a det errent or coun terproductive effect on (p otential) irregular

migrants (considering that the purpose of the entry bans is to prevent irregular migrants to enter

EU Member State ter ritory)?