THE REVISED HANDBOOK ON RETURNS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION returns, which they are recommended (paragraph 6) to be subject to the minimum foreseen time of 7 days according to Article 7 paragraph 1 of the Directive (which allows for 7 to 30 days), while the guarantees of rights are demarcated, as for example the suspensive effect of the appeals: The revised Handbook (paragraph 12.4) recommends to the member states to proceed to provide ipso jure suspensive effect in appeals against return decisions only in two instances, these being the invocation of non- refoulement (of the non-return for reasons of international protection) because irreparable damage to life or serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration of the state of health are at stake and not for other reasons. The Handbook mentions noticeably the other reasons for which automatic suspensive effect is not justified and that is the case of appeals related to medical care, familial cohesion, or the best interests of the minor. Finally, the Handbook recommends the use of exceptional procedures at the borders, in other words the exceptions that are foreseen from the normal procedure of the Directive, for example because of agreements for readmissions (article 2, paragraph 2.a). It is noteworthy, through the interpretation of the rule that the derogation from the rule should be recommended, but this would be a logical paradox only and not a paradox from a political viewpoint. The justification of the Handbook (paragraph 2.1) is exactly the use of exceptional, more effective procedures “in the case of frontline Member States experiencing significant migratory pressure” This “significant” factor of pressure constitutes, of course, an evaluative judgement, sufficiently vague, for which no criteria or measures for weighing up are provided. The question then arises, following the above, as to whether some content is left behind in the clause regarding the maintenance of possible, more favourable measures which do not come into conflict with the binding nature of the content of the Directive (article 4), if the binding content is interpreted according to the guidelines of the Handbook. The total picture of the Handbook seems to be governed by the logic that the entrenchment of rights and guarantees clashes with the effectiveness of returns. This opinion underestimates malfunctions in the system of returns, such as the outlay and the time consuming character of the procedures of return, the degree of co-operation of the countries of origin or readmission, the malfunctions of the administrative mechanism on issues of co-ordination and capacity of the competent services from the point of view of staffing and a clear regulatory framework of operation, and so forth. These malfunctions, speaking from the 26