Translation of "Rückkehrentscheidung" in English

Member States are not allowed to tolerate in practice the presence of illegally staying third-country nationals on their territory without either launching a return procedure or granting a right to stay.

Relevant Union IT systems, such as the Schengen Information Syststem II (‘SIS II’), Eurodac and the Visa Information System (‘VIS’), should be fully used by the competent national authorities to support the identification and the individual assessment of each case, as well as to facilitate and support cooperation between the Member States in return and readmission procedures.

In this respect, it is recalled that Article 13(1) SBC establishes that Member States shall apprehend and subject to return procedures third-country nationals who have crossed the external borders illegally and who have no right to stay in the EU.

A mere reception by the border police in the country of return without any necessary follow-up measures or flanking measures cannot be considered as ‘adequate reception’.

Would this return decision (perhaps accompanied by an entry ban) automatically mean that the visa is no longer valid?

In the case of such withdrawal, it shall immediately delete the alert on return.

The first stage consists in the adoption of a return decision.

Return decisions in accordance with the Return Directive must also be taken when a return procedure is carried out using a readmission agreement: the use of readmission agreements with a third country (covering the relations between EU Member States and third countries) does not affect the full and inclusive application of the Return Directive (covering the relation between removing State and returnee) in each individual case of return.

Attention should be paid to the fact that in these specific cases (entry from another Member State) Article 6(2) or 6(3) of the Return Directive may be applicable.

An alert on return shall be entered into SIS without delay following issue of a return decision.

Prior consultation before entering an alert on return

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is also applicable to proceedings to issue a return decision and requires a hearing.

For instance, certain Member States do not issue return decisions following a negative decision on an asylum claim or a residence permit, or do not issue such decisions to illegally staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid identity or travel document.

In accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [25] (the ‘Employers Sanctions Directive’), employers who employ illegally staying third-country nationals without authorisation are liable to pay a financial sanction that shall include the costs of return in those cases where return procedures are carried out.

This obligation on Member States to either initiate return procedures or to grant a right to stay aims at reducing ‘grey areas’, to prevent exploitation of illegally staying persons and to improve legal certainty for all involved.

Competent national authorities should be able to enforce return decisions without the need to re-launch the procedure after a certain period of time (for example one year), provided that the individual situation of the third-country national concerned has not significantly changed in fact or in law (for example change in legal status, risk of refoulement) and without prejudice to the rights to be heard and to an effective remedy.

In fact the use of the readmission agreement presumes the issuance of the return decision first.

The Commission calls on Member States to establish procedures for issuing return decisions and — if applicable — entry bans directly at the airport, at other external border crossing points or, for entry bans, in absentia (see section 11.3) for such specific cases.

Legal basis: Council Directive 2001/40/EC [27]Reminder/explanation: The effect of a return decision issued by one Member State in another Member State had been subject of a separate chapter V of the 2005 Commission proposal for the Return Directive (‘Apprehension in other Member States’).

Article 6 of the Return Directive does not expressly mention the case that a second Member State recognises a return decision issued by a first Member State in accordance with Directive 2001/40/EC.