Reading time: 6 minutes
By Alexia Angeli
The European Commission has unveiled a new proposal to reform the EU’s migrant return system, seeking to streamline procedures and establish outsourced return hubs. While the measure promises increased efficiency, it has ignited concerns over human rights and legal compliance.
STRASBOURG – On March 11th, 2025, European Commissioner for Home Affairs Magnus Brunner and Executive Vice President of the European Commission Henna Virkunnen introduced a legislative proposal to the Council of the European Union for a regulation on returns which, if approved, would replace the existing Directive 2008/115/EC.
The plan introduces a unified return mechanism by closing a legal loophole of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which will come into effect in 2026. It aims to establish effective and simplified return management regulations for Member States and ensure the effective application of migration regulations through cooperation with authorities, respect for fundamental rights, and the prevention of rule circumvention.
Key provisions of the proposal
The proposal consists of several key points. One of the most significant changes is the introduction of a European Return Order, allowing Member States to recognize return decisions issued by other EU nations. This will become mandatory by July 1, 2027, reducing delays and making it harder for returnees to evade authorities by moving between countries. To ensure the enforcement, authorities will be allowed to monitor individuals facing return through financial guarantees, periodic check-ins, or assigned residences. In cases of risk of absconding, individuals may be detained for up to 24 months, or face alternatives to detention. The suspension of a return decision following an appeal will no longer be automatic unless it violates the non-refoulement principle.
The regulation then follows a dual approach: encouraging voluntary returns while strengthening forced deportations. The latter will be mandatory for those deemed security risks, individuals who fail to leave voluntarily within the given timeframe, those who attempt to evade authorities by relocating within the EU, or those who refuse to cooperate with national authorities during the return process. The ones mentioned last risk losing travel documents and facing a reduction or denial of benefits; in addition, if a Member State identifies someone as a security risk, stricter regulations may apply, including an extended entry ban and separate detention rules that could lead to imprisonment beyond 24 months by judicial order.
A controversial aspect of the proposal is the possibility for Member States to outsource return hubs to third countries under bilateral agreements, provided these nations adhere to international law, including the principle of non-refoulement. Member States will define the details of detention, including transfer procedures and conditions during the stay. Vulnerable individuals, including minors and families with children, would be exempt from this measure. The European Commission would monitor these agreements to ensure compliance with fundamental rights and EU law.
Brunner emphasized that these return hubs would not follow the controversial UK-Rwanda or Italy-Albania models. Instead, the plan focuses on those who have exhausted all legal avenues for asylum and have received final return orders.
Support and opposition
Brunner stated in an interview with Euractiv that the return issue is “existential,” noting that only 20% of return orders in the EU are actually carried out. He warned that if the problem is not effectively addressed, “we will lose the trust of our citizens.”
“Return is a key pillar of the Pact on Migration and Asylum”, confirmed Virkunnen, “without a credible, effective return policy, we cannot have a comprehensive and trustworthy migration system.”
The proposal has received backing from the Netherlands, Italy, and Denmark. Italy, in particular, is exploring the possibility of repurposing its Albania-based centers for returns, while Denmark is considering establishing return centers in Uganda. However, it has been rejected by representatives of the European Socialist Party. German MEP Birgit Sippel, coordinator for S&D in the Civil Liberties Committee, argued that “looking at the UK-Rwanda plan or the Italy-Albania agreement is a mistake: they are legally questionable and waste huge amounts of taxpayer money.” The proposal, in short, does not please the allies of the EPP, but may find support in the right wing of the European Parliament.
Legal and ethical concerns
The proposal faces challenges coming not only from progressive political groups but also from various EU stakeholders.
It relies on Article 79(2)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which allows for EU-wide measures on illegal migration. However, critics argue that it contradicts a 2018 EU policy document, which rejected external return centers due to concerns over forced returns to non-origin countries and potential breaches of the non-refoulement principle.
The proposal was reportedly developed in consultation with key European agencies such as the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), and various NGOs and civil society organizations. However, these same agencies have raised concerns about the direction of EU migration policy. In a February 6th report, the Fundamental Rights Agency highlighted that without adequate safeguards, the return of third-country nationals could lead to violations of several fundamental rights, such as human dignity, freedom, and asylum rights, while the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) warns of the lack of clear legal safeguards to prevent returns to unsafe countries and the risk of discriminatory treatment and denial of fair asylum procedures.
Several NGOs have also voiced opposition to the proposal. PICUM (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants), represented by director Silvia Carta, criticized the lack of measures to promote social inclusion and regularization. Meanwhile, Amnesty International’s European Institutions Office director Eve Geddie raised concerns about economic costs and condemned the plan as an attempt to satisfy “the unworkable, expensive and inhumane demands of a few shrill anti-human rights and anti-migration governments.”
“The Commission itself discarded the concept of ‘return hubs’ in 2018. It is well aware that these proposals will lead to human rights violations, waste millions of euros and alienate allies – at a time when the EU needs friends.”
What’s next?
As the European Union’s ordinary legislative process moves forward, the “hot potato” now lies with the Council and the European Parliament. The proposal, which appears to cater to the European right wing, not only calls for better management of returns to strengthen existing migration laws, but also sets the stage for the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, set to take effect in 2026. However, critics warn that it tightens the screws on detention policies, potentially compromising the Union’s core humanitarian values.
The challenge facing the EU is clear: with 27 member states holding differing legal systems, already at odds over issues of democracy and civil rights, the Commission’s optimistic outlook on safeguarding asylum rights and ensuring non-discriminatory, dignified treatment during asylum applications scrutiny, transfers and detention may not be realistic. The Union’s decision to shift responsibility for inefficiencies in returns onto non-EU countries raises further concerns about its commitment to humanitarian principles.
As the proposal moves through the legislative process, all eyes will be on the EU’s lawmakers to clarify whether the Union can strike a balance between efficiency and human rights, and whether its vision of a fair migration system will stand up to scrutiny.