EU Returns: tightening Deportation Rules and Immigration Detention

EU Returns Regulation: tightening Deportation Rules and Immigration Detention

New EU Returns Regulation: Toward Stricter Deportations and Expanded Immigration Detention

In recent years, migration management has become one of the most prominent issues in the European political debate. While public and media attention often focuses on policies in the United States, the European Union has also been steadily adopting increasingly restrictive measures on migration control. The proposed new EU Returns Regulation represents one of the most significant developments in this ongoing shift.

On 9 March 2026, the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) approved a number of amendments to the proposed Returns Regulation, originally put forward by the European Commission, paving the way for final negotiations with the Council on the text. The proposal introduces stricter measures that could make the removal of third-country nationals in an irregular administrative situation both faster and more extensive.

The reform traces its origins to the 2008 Returns Directive, which established common minimum standards while leaving considerable discretion to Member States. Unlike the Directive, however, the new legal instrument would take the form of a Regulation, meaning it would be directly applicable across all EU Member States without requiring national transposition into domestic law. Presented by the European Commission under President Ursula von der Leyen in March 2025, the proposal forms part of the broader EU Pact on Migration and Asylum and seeks to increase the effectiveness of the EU return system, which has long been hindered by limited cooperation with countries of origin.

The proposal envisages intensified identification procedures and immigration checks targeting third-country nationals residing irregularly within the EU. Of particular concern is the fact that these checks could be extended to public spaces, public transport, workplaces and even private homes. They would also be supported by an expanded use of surveillance technologies and European biometric databases, including Eurodac and the Schengen Information System (SIS).

This strengthening of tracking and identification mechanisms is closely linked to the proposal’s broader expansion of immigration detention. Rapid identification would facilitate not only the issuance of return orders – which would become valid throughout the EU – but also their enforcement through detention in immigration detention centres. Furthermore, the proposal introduces a legal obligation for migrants to cooperate throughout the return procedure by providing identification information, surrendering identity documents and biometric data, and remaining available throughout the administrative process. Failure to comply with these obligations could result in administrative sanctions, reinforcing a system in which detention becomes a coercive enforcement tool. As a result, the proposal would significantly expand and normalise immigration detention, allowing detention periods of up to two years – substantially extending the current limits.

Even more concerning is the proposal’s potential extension of detention to particularly vulnerable groups. According to discussions in the European Parliament, the Regulation could allow for the detention of families with children for prolonged periods during return procedures. This would represent a significant departure from the standards of protection traditionally recognised under European human rights law. In this context, detention would no longer be treated as an exceptional measure of last resort but would increasingly become a routine instrument of migration governance.

The proposal also opens the possibility of establishing “return hubs” in non-EU countries, where individuals whose asylum applications have been rejected could be forcibly transferred while awaiting deportation. This strategy reflects a broader trend that has emerged in recent years, exemplified by the agreement between Italy and Albania, and marks a further step towards the externalisation of EU migration policies. Such developments raise serious concerns regarding the protection of fundamental rights and the possibility of ensuring effective judicial oversight.

The proposal has generated strong criticism from civil society organisations. During a press conference held on 6 March by PICUM, Amnesty International, Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice and the International Rescue Committee, speakers warned of an increasingly punitive direction in European migration policy. The expansion of immigration controls and deportations could also have profound social consequences: many undocumented migrants may avoid accessing essential services such as healthcare and education for fear of being identified, thereby increasing their marginalisation and vulnerability. The Council of Europe has also expressed concerns. The Commissioner for Human Rights warned that the proposal risks weakening fundamental safeguards, particularly regarding immigration detention, children’s rights and compliance with the principle of non-refoulement.

Although the proposal has been approved by the European Parliament, the legislative process is not yet complete. The negotiations between the Parliament and the Council will be crucial in determining the final text and in defining the balance between strengthening border control and protecting fundamental rights.

The proposed Regulation could mark a major turning point in European migration policy. On the one hand, it responds to Member States’ desire to strengthen return procedures and immigration enforcement. On the other, it raises profound questions about the protection of human rights and the kind of society the European Union seeks to build.