This article is an opinion piece by a current student or alumnus/alumna of the College of Europe, featured in our monthly newsletter. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of the College of Europe. Responsibility for the content lies solely with the author.
By Alejandra FERNÁNDEZ DE ANGULO
On March 11, 2025, the European Commission introduced a legislative proposal for a new Regulation on Returns, aiming to establish a harmonized system for handling the return of migrants in irregular situations. This proposal seeks to replace the existing Return Directive from 2008 and constitutes a key pillar of the 2024 Pact on Migration and Asylum, scheduled to take effect in mid-2026.
The Commission is cementing its tougher stance on migration matters with this proposal. According to EU Commissioner for Migration, Magnus Brunner, “One out of five people who are told to leave the EU, actually leave the EU, and that is not acceptable”. Under the pressure of Member States for action to be taken and for this number to increase, the Commission submitted a text in the form of a Regulation which would be directly binding and applicable across the Union. It must, however, be highlighted that, since no Staff Working Document has been published by the Commission yet, essential background information that supports this legislative proposal is lacking, not allowing data to be verified.
The text sets up a common procedure for Member States to issue return decisions and orders, making returns the standard approach for handling unauthorized stays. Additionally, it ensures mutual recognition of these measures across the EU, leaving many questions unanswered regarding its operability. Based on the submission, any third-country national in an irregular situation in European territory will be issued a return decision and given a maximum of 30 days before a return order is enforced. Once this happens, migrants may be sent to one of three destinations: their country of origin, a transit country, or, as a new controversial measure, “return hubs.”
With this, the Commission has given Member States the green light to legally establish offshore detention centers through bilateral agreements. This enables the transfer of individuals to a third country, provided that a pre-existing bilateral or EU agreement is in place, and ensures compliance with international human rights standards. While the Commission is trying to offer innovative solutions, it seems to disregard the legal hurdles other return hub projects have already posed to member states, such as Italy’s case with Albania. These centers are also estimated to cost hundreds of millions of euros despite only being capable of hosting non-vulnerable men since no children or families are allowed, given the safeguards.
Human rights concerns have been raised given the fact that the EU would neither set up nor manage these centers. The International Rescue Committee commented that “nobody should ever be forced to go to a country that is unsafe or where their rights cannot be guaranteed, regardless of their legal status.” These concerns are not trivial, as reports from sources like Le Monde, Der Spiegel, and El País have already documented cases of torture, abuse, and deportations in Turkish centers funded by the European Union. The Commission has yet to specify how these new projects will differ from the existing ones.
Another novelty is the suggestion to extend detention time from 18 months to a maximum of 24. Detention is conceived to successfully deal with returns in situations when there is risk of absconding, lack of cooperation, or a threat to national security. This extension would notably also apply to children, despite ongoing appeals from human rights organizations such as the United Nations or Save the Children to stop the detention of migrant minors. According to them, this not only goes against the best interest of the child but increases their risk of facing violence and abuse.
Standards and guarantees are established for the duration of detention, ensuring access to open-air spaces, visitations, and communication with legal representatives. However, the proposal allows for limited access to some of these rights in emergency situations, such as an exceptionally high number of individuals awaiting return or significant pressure on judicial and administrative capacities. This could mean extended timeframes for judicial review or a lower standard of detention conditions.
Those third-country nationals who pose a national or public security threat will face severe measures, such as entry bans of up to ten years or detentions possibly exceeding the established maximum. A similar fate awaits those who do not cooperate in their return procedure, such as reduction of access to benefits or financial penalties. With this, a more cooperative attitude is aimed to be ensured.
This text has not been received quietly: several organizations have raised their voices and concerns regarding the impact and potential risks of the proposal. PICUM firmly stated that "no meaningful consultation with civil society or impact assessments have been conducted.” Moreover, it stressed that the proposal “turns forced returns into the default option for people found in an irregular situation" and "massively expands the use and duration of immigration detention." Amnesty International highlighted that “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.”
Beyond these concerns, one is quick to notice the practical challenges the Regulation poses, particularly in the area of mutual recognition. If a return decision based on a migrant’s circumstances can now be enforced anywhere in the EU, does this mean that in case said migrant moves, another Member State can carry it out without reassessing those circumstances? If their situation has changed, a new assessment would seem necessary. Additionally, how will Ministries across the EU communicate with one another regarding returns when faced with technical legal terms and language barriers? Another pressing question is what happens to migrants who are released after reaching the maximum detention period without being returned. In those same circumstances, could the clock of the maximum detention time, namely 24 months, be restarted if a migrant moves from one Member State to another? These questions remain unanswered since no Impact Assessment has been carried out for this proposal, just as it wasn’t conducted for the EU Pact itself.
As the legislative procedure follows its course, these essential modifications must now be discussed by the European Parliament and the Council. While we digest these 52 new articles, the institutions must ask themselves whether they align with the EU’s foundational principles of human dignity, freedom, equality, and human rights.
Alejandra FERNÁNDEZ DE ANGULO
Alejandra Fernández de Angulo is a student at the College of Europe in Bruges, where she is pursuing a Master of European Law (LLM). Before joining the College, she completed a double Bachelor's Degree in Law and Political Science at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Passionate about human rights and migration law, Alejandra has worked at Fundación Raíces, providing legal aid and advocating for the protection and defense of migrant minors’ rights against violations by the Public Administration. She also spent time in Athens at the Elna Maternity Centre, a refugee center supporting breastfeeding migrant women in highly vulnerable situations.
The Executive Education, Training and Projects Office of the College of Europe is pleased to announce the launch of a new Executive Education course at its Tirana campus. From 28 to 30 September 2026...