Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

RemovedEXPLANATORY STATEMENT

RemovedThe Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common system for the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the Union, and repealing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, Council Directive 2001/40/EC and Council Decision 2004/191/EC comes at the right moment. With the implementation of the Pact in June 2026, this Regulation serves as the final piece of the key legislation aimed at addressing illegal migration within the European Union while taking into account the fundamental rights of the third-country national concerned. Without a functioning system on returns, the European migration framework can never operate effectively.

RemovedRight now, based on the available data, only around 20 percent of rejected asylum seekers are actually returned to their country of origin. This situation is deeply concerning, as it undermines both public confidence and support for our common migration policies. Moreover, it has the unintended consequence of leaving genuine refugees, those truly in need of protection, out in the cold as well as those who migrate for other reasons via legal pathways.

RemovedOne of the main reasons for this shortcoming lies in the outdated legal framework, which dates back to 2008. A previous attempt to revise this directive was made, but unfortunately it did not lead to a successful outcome due to a missing Parliament position. This clearly demonstrates the urgent need for a more effective, fast and modern approach.

RemovedThe only way to ensure a successful, swift and efficient return system is to approach it at European level. Member States share a collective responsibility to contribute to this effort, as this is a challenge that affects us all. The Rapporteur took this in mind while drafting further on the proposal.

RemovedA European approach

RemovedGiven the importance of a truly European approach, it is useful to begin with the most significant change compared to the current framework, namely the mandatory mutual recognition between Member States. With this new obligation, we aim to prevent an increase in secondary movements and to reduce the administrative burden for Member States, as no entirely new procedure will be required. It will speed up the return processes throughout the Union. To further decreasing pressure on Member States, Frontex will due to this report play a greater role in the return procedure, with the newly introduced obligation of Member States to ask Frontex for support within the return process. Besides, Member States will also be able to build on one another’s assessments, which will be accessible through the Schengen Information System (SIS). An example of such an assessment is the well-known age assessment.

RemovedMutual recognition has already been introduced by the Commission. However, in the rapporteur’s view, it would be far more efficient to allow for an immediate start of the recognition with a standard return order, and with a full implementation across all Member States after one year. This transitional period will provide Member States with sufficient time to adapt and align their national systems accordingly.

RemovedThis European approach also encompasses the newly introduced readmission procedure. The Commission’s draft proposal provided a solid starting point. However, in the rapporteur’s opinion, the extensive level of detail risks creating an additional administrative burden. The approach proposed in this draft therefore offers a simplified and more streamlined solution through a standardised application form, accessible via SIS. This form will only need to be used when necessary. By introducing a common template, other Member States will be able to consult ongoing procedures more easily, thereby facilitating mutual recognition.

RemovedThe draft highlights and introduces the new obligation of third countries to cooperate with readmission, especially regarding identification and travel documents. Non-cooperation will be assessed by the Commission and will have the necessary consequences since it costs an unnecessary delay in procedure but also shows a lack of trust between the Union and the specific third country. The Commission did not touch upon this even though it’s a mission piece in the legislation.

Voluntary return

Change 10

RemovedThe draft gives priority to voluntary instead of forced return in contrary with the Commission’s proposal. It is clear that voluntary return is more sustainable, effective and efficient. To intensify the benefits of voluntary return, it is in this draft not possible, except when there is a security threat, to give out an entry ban when someone leaves voluntarily and in compliance. Besides, reintegration support is also only possible in these cases of voluntary returns. All these changes are aimed to increase voluntary return as a primary option. But even though voluntary return is the preferred way for returning third-country nationals who have no right to stay, removal is still an important part of the Regulation. Especially since not cooperating with the authorities of the Member States can result in unnecessary delays and an overburden of the system. The whole regulation resolves around returning, so when returning voluntary is not possible or the third-country national will/ is not cooperating, removal stays a possibility to put in place for the Member States. For third-country nationals who poses a security threat, removal should always be possible to keep the safety within the Schengen borders.

Added1. When the third-country national is not subject to removal in accordance with Article 12, the return decision shall indicate a date by which the third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States and shall state the possibility for the third-country national to leave earlier.

RemovedReturn to a third country with which there is an agreement

Added2. The date referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined with due regard to the specific circumstances of the individual case and may indicate that the third country national shall leave the territory of the Member States immediately. The date by which the third-country national shall leave shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notification of the return decision.

RemovedBecause of the importance of actually returning someone out of the Schengen borders, the option proposed by the Commission for returning a third-country national to a country with which there is an agreement is still on the table. It has not gone unnoticed that the proposal for this has raised significant concerns. Nevertheless, it reflects a broad desire among the European Union since it can be a safeguard for Member States in dealing with illegal migration and serves as a valuable incentive to encourage the preferred voluntary returns or cooperation. It is necessary to create a sustainable system that works on a long time basis.

Added3. Member States may, upon request of the third country national, provide for a longer period or extend the period to leave their territory in accordance with paragraph 1 taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case,▌. Member States may shorten the departure period in case of non-compliance with the obligations to cooperate as set out in Article 21.

RemovedBut return to a third country with which there is an agreement can only be done with strict provisions. The draft takes safeguards sufficiently more into account, and such measures may only be implemented on the basis of last resort. To make sure that it only serves as a matter of last resort, a new hierarchy is introduced in article 4. Furthermore, minors and families with minors remain excluded from the return hubs.

Added4. The third-country national shall leave the territory of the Member States by the date determined pursuant to paragraph 1. If not, the third-country national shall be subject of removal in accordance with Article 12.

RemovedFinally, while it is possible to regulate this solely at the level of Member States with remaining flexibility, there is a clearer preference added in this draft for a European Union-level approach.

AddedConditions for postponing removal

RemovedFundamental rights, the right to information and monitoring

Added1. Removal pursuant to Article 12 shall be postponed in the following circumstances:

RemovedSixthly, since fundamental rights are key throughout the whole European Union, it is further broadened in this draft. Despite the obligation to return, we must not lose sight of the fact that we are ultimately speaking about people. Hence, the principle of non-refoulement must be respected throughout the draft.

Addeda. when it is established that it would violate the principle of non-refoulement; or

RemovedAt the same time, it is essential that any measures adopted under this legislation remain proportionate and fully in line with fundamental rights.

Addedb. when and for as long as suspension of the return decision in accordance with Article 28 is in place.

RemovedAs a seventh point, and closely linked to the safeguards and the cooperation of the third-country national, special attention is paid in this draft to the right to information. It is essential to provide clear and understandable information from the beginning to the end of the procedure. Without sufficient information, it is impossible for the person concerned to cooperate. Moreover, being informed of their rights increases the likelihood that third-country nationals will engage constructively with the process. A new introduction is made of easy leaflets for persons with little or no literacy skills, to ensure that they also receive accurate information and can understand it.

Added2. Removal pursuant to Article 12 may be postponed ▌, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case and provided that there is no risk of absconding in accordance with Article 30.

RemovedThe development of a proper monitoring system also deserves more attention, mainly for two reasons. On the one hand, because this is a regulation, and the European vision should be further enhanced in line with the rest of this draft. On the other hand, because return options are broadened, and we must ensure that removals are sustainable and respectful to fundamental rights. Therefore, a truly European, effective and consistent monitoring system within Frontex is essential in stead of leaving it for the Member States. With make it more centralised, there is a clear overview of the whole return process and the importance of upholding fundamental rights.

Added3. If the third-country national requests postponement of removal, the request shall be duly substantiated.

RemovedThe obligation to cooperate

Added4. When taking a decision in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, Member States shall provide the third-country national concerned with a written confirmation setting out the period of postponement and their rights during that period. A translation of the confirmation may be communicated orally to the third-country national in a language that he or she understands, or may reasonably be presumed to understand, including, where necessary, through the use of interpretation services.

RemovedBecause of the increased focus on voluntary return, there is, as in the Commission’s proposal, sufficient attention given to the obligation to cooperate. Indeed, additional measures are provided to facilitate return, including enhanced information provision, assistance with the return process, and support for reintegration. Should an individual nevertheless fail to cooperate, certain consequences will in this draft also apply. Without these measures, the system would remain ineffective, and we would be unable to exceed the current return rate of around 20 percent. In this way, the framework becomes more balanced and effective.

Added5. The decision to postpone removal ▌shall be ▌reviewed,▌in case of change of relevant circumstances.

RemovedThese consequences are proportionate and fair within the context of the proposal. Special attention has been paid in this draft to alternatives to detention to ensure that regular detention remains a measure of last resort. This is why the order in the Regulation is changed. After all, statistics show that detention is effective only in cases where a person can be returned quickly, thereby ensuring the efficiency of the return process and helping to prevent overburdening the system. Further, in this draft, the duration of detention is brought back to the duration know in the current Directive because of positive results. This, of course, does not apply to individuals who constitute a security risk. Nevertheless, detention is still necessary, especially in cases where there is a risk of absconding. This means that detention for minors and families with minors should stay possible to overcome the misuse of minors.

Added6. ▌7. If the removal is postponed, the measures set out in Articles 21, 29 and 31 may be applied when the conditions are fulfilled.

RemovedEntry bans and the right to an effective remedy

AddedMonitoring of removal

RemovedNew in this draft is the introduction of an unlimited entry ban for individuals who pose such a significant security risk within the European Union, that it is necessary that they can never return to the Schengen border. This goes for war criminals and terrorists. They should never have a place in our society. On the other hand, extension of an entry ban is no longer possible because of practical reasons but also the lack of proportionality. Besides the unlimited entry ban and the deletion of extension, maximum time limits are introduced to make sure that entry bans are always legitimate, fair and constructive. With this maximum, it is up to the Member States to decide how long the entry ban can be.

Added1. Member States shall provide for an independent mechanism to monitor the respect of fundamental rights during removal operations. ▌Member States shall be able to have recourse to already existing monitoring mechanisms, including those established in Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 and in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.

RemovedAs a ninth point, careful attention has been given to the right to an effective remedy. Every third-country national required to return has the right to an effective remedy if they consider that the procedure is not being conducted properly or if there is a risk of non-refoulement. However, this does not imply that an automatic suspensive is always required or necessary in every case. This automatic suspensive effect can result in delays, even though the risk of non-refoulement had already been thoroughly assessed during the initial procedure, or in cases where the individual had never requested for protection. To prevent possible unnecessary delays, this requirement has been removed, while still preserving the possibility to submit a request for suspension when needed and the possibility to receive legal assistance and representation.

Added2. ▌

RemovedData sharing

Added3. ▌

RemovedFinally, as reflected in the draft, a positive assessment has been made of the rules on data sharing. A Regulation provides an opportunity to place greater emphasis on data safety which should remain at the centre of attention. With the new mutual recognition, it is of upmost important that Member States share the required data with each other in respect with data protection. In this draft, data sharing between Member States is only possible with the authorities or judicial authorities entrusted with the return procedure. Further, not all the proposed details from the Commission are of added value, and sufficient flexibility must be maintained.

AddedReturn of third-country nationals posing security risks

RemovedOf course, data sharing and protection are also important for the readmission procedure and contact with the third countries, where it is part of a trusted relationship. Without data sharing it is impossible to start a procedure. Extra attention is given to data sharing relating criminal offences since it must not lead to handing down or executing a death penalty or any form of cruel and inhuman treatment.

Added1. This Article shall apply to third-country nationals where:

RemovedThe Rapporteur welcomes the proposal of the Commission and is convinced that a swift implementation is possible that aligns with the implementation of the Migration Pact when everyone takes responsibility.

Addeda. they pose a threat to public policy, to public security or to national security;

Addedb. there are clear indications for believing that they have committed a serious criminal offence as referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA or have committed a criminal offence punishable by a custodial sentence of at least two years under national law;

Addedc. there are clear indications of his or her intention to commit an offence pursuant to point (b) of this paragraph in the territory of a Member State.

Addedca. there are clear indications that the person is involved in any of the offences referred to in Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

Addedcb. there are clear indications that they pose any other security threat as identified under national law.

Added2. Third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article shall be subject to removal in accordance with Article 12.

Added2a. Paragraph 1, points (b) and (c), shall apply to persons who incite or otherwise participate in the commission of the crimes or acts referred to therein.

Added2b. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that return decisions concerning third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article are dealt with and executed as a matter of priority.

Added3. By way of derogation from the relevant provisions of this Regulation, third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Article may be:

Addeda. subject to an indefinite entry ban ▌