COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 14.10.2002
COM(2002) 564 final
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
ON A COMMUNITY RETURN POLICY ON ILLEGAL RESIDENTS
2Table of Contents
Foreword
1. Return as an integral pa rt of a comprehensive Community immigration and asylum
Policy ......................................................................................................................... .. 6
1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... ..... 6
1.2. Working premises following the Commission’s Green Paper ....................................... 7
1.2.1. Focussing on the return of illegal residents ................................................................. 71.2.2. Safeguarding the integrity of immigration and asylum systems by the return of illegal
residents ...................................................................................................................... .8
1.2.3. Respecting international oblig ations and human rights ............................................... 8
1.2.4. Co-operating with countries of origin  and transit on return and readmission.............. 9
2. Return Action Programme.............................................................................................. 9
2.1. Phased integrated approach for interdepen dent elements of a Community return policy
............................................................................................................................... ....... 9
2.2. Operational co-operation among Member States......................................................... 11
2.2.1. Definitions.............................................................................................................. .... 11
2.2.2. Statistics and information exchange........................................................................... 112.2.3. Networking authorities............................................................................................... 112.2.4. Best practices and guidelines ..................................................................................... 122.2.5. Joint training ........................................................................................................... ... 12
2.2.6. Better identification and documentation .................................................................... 13
2.2.7. Readmission and transit rules among Member States................................................ 142.2.8. Mutual assistance by immigration liaison officers..................................................... 152.2.9. Joint Return Operations ............................................................................................. 152.2.10. Better co-ordination ................................................................................................... 1 6
2.3. Common minimum standards to ensure efficient return policies ................................ 172.3.1. Mutual recognition of return decisions ...................................................................... 172.3.2. Removal .................................................................................................................. ... 17
2.3.3. Preconditions for expulsion decisions........................................................................ 18
32.3.4. Ending of legal residence........................................................................................... 19
2.3.5. Detention pending removal........................................................................................ 192.3.6. Proof of exit and re-entry........................................................................................... 212.4. Elements for integrated return programmes................................................................. 212.5. Intensification of co-opera tion with third countries..................................................... 23
2.5.1. Enhanced administrative co-operation....................................................................... 232.5.2. Community readmission agreements ......................................................................... 242.5.3. Transit and admission arrangements and ag reements with other third countries ...... 24
3. Conclusions .................................................................................................................. ...25
Annex
4FOREWORD
The Commission stressed the need for a common return policy in its Communication of
15 November 2001 on a Common Policy on Illegal Immigration. As it had pledged, on10 April 2002 it tabled a Green Paper on a Comm unity Return Policy on Illegal Residents to
serve as a basis for wide-ranging consultations on this sensitive issue. This process, whichwas concluded on 31 July, attracted many c ontributions from Member States, candidate
countries, third countries, international, go vernmental and non-governmental organisations
and other national and local aut horities. It culminated in a pub lic hearing on 16 July attended
by over 200 people at which some thirty experts spoke.
The importance of the matter was restated in th e conclusions of the Seville European Council,
which called, as a matter of priority, for an action programme to be adopted in this fieldbefore the end of the year. Return policy was also discussed in detail at the informalministerial meeting in Copenhagen on 13 and 14 September. Like the results of the
consultation, the pointers provided by these disc ussions were an invaluable contribution for
preparing this Communication.
The Commission would point out that a common a pproach on return would be inconceivable
outside the general framework of the Community policy on immigration and asylum, thefoundations of which were laid in the Treaty of Amsterdam and in th e conclusions of the
Tampere, Laeken and Seville European Councils. In this sense, the Communication is just one
part of a much larger whole, the other components of which can be found in the many
proposals and Communications, which the Commission has tabled in recent years.
As the title itself suggests, the only issue addressed is that of the return of illegal residents, i.e.
those who do not, or no longer, fulfil the conditi ons for entry to, presence in or residence on
the territories of the Member States. It does not tackle the wider topic of the return of legalresidents and, for example, how such return c ould benefit the country of origin. These points
will be addressed elsewhere, for instance in a forthcoming Communication on the relationshipbetween migration and development.
The effectiveness of Community action for return of illegal residents is therefore an essential
aspect for the credibility of any policy for fighting illegal immigration. But for it to be fullyeffective, it must fit smoothly into a genui ne management of migration issues, requiring
crystal-clear consolidation of legal immigration channels and of the situation of legalimmigrants, an effective and generous asylum system based on rapid procedures offeringaccess to true protection for those needing it and enhanced dialogue with third countries,
which will increasingly be invited to be partners in dealing with migration.
Against this background, and given the sp ecific purpose of this Communication, the
Commission intends to highlight four items in particular:
– A rapid response is required to the need to step up operational coop eration. Member States
are very keen on this. It is essential that c ontacts and the exchange of information be made
easier on the basis of common terms of referen ce, practices and training be brought into
line and common moves be encouraged so that obstacles can be removed and resources co-
ordinated in areas such as the identificati on and documentation of the persons concerned,
co-ordination of return operations and mobilisation of the necessary resources.
5– This operational cooperation w ill, however, soon reveal its limitations if there is no
suitable legal framework. A first target fo r the medium term will be the adoption of
common standards to facilitate the work of the national authorities handling returnoperations and in partic ular to ensure full mutual recognition of removal decisions, moving
on from the first step represented by the directive adopted in May 2001. Subsequently
these arrangements will have to be spelled out in even more detail on points such as thesituation of a person who may be the subject of a return decision.
– On the basis of the experience of Member Stat es and international organisations, the basic
elements of an integrated programme shoul d be worked out to form a common framework
which could be adjusted to the specific need s of the populations and countries concerned.
Such a programme would have to cover not onl y return proper but also the different stages
of its preparation and its follow-up in order to give it every chance of being sustainable.
The Commission is prepared, if necessary, to consider the possibility of releasingCommunity financial resources to support the establishment of such programmes.
– Here, as elsewhere, closer co-ope ration with third countries is a sine qua non  for the
success of the policy. This co-operation will, of course, have to develop first atadministrative and operational level, concerni ng the documentation and reception of the
persons concerned and also as regards transit in some cases. In formal terms it may involve
conclusion of readmission agreements, the importance of which has been regularly
underlined by the European Council and the C ouncil. Care will also have to be taken to
ensure that the ground is prepared for profita ble reintegration both for the returnee and for
the place of origin. This will require both a firm commitment on the part of the third
country and the readiness of the European Un ion and its Member States to provide the
necessary assistance where required.
61. RETURN AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY IMMIGRATION
AND ASYLUM POLICY
1.1. Introduction
The European Council of Seville on 21 a nd 22 June 2002 called for the speeding up
of the implementation of all aspects of  the programme adopted by the European
Council of Tampere in October 1999 for the creation of an area of freedom, security
and justice in the European Union, in particular the common policy on immigration
and asylum. The need to fight effectively against illegal immigration was reaffirmedas an essential part of such a common and comprehensive policy. The EuropeanCouncil of Laeken on 14 and 15 December 2001 had already called for an actionplan on illegal immigration
1. On the basis of the Commission’s Communication on a
common policy on illegal immigration of 15 November 20012, the JHA Council
adopted on 28 February 2002 a comprehens ive plan to combat illegal immigration
and trafficking of human beings in the European Union3. Return and readmission
policies are identified as integral and vital components of that plan.
To follow up those aspects of this plan the Commission on 10 April 2002 tabled a
Green Paper on a Community Retu rn Policy on Illegal Residents4. Its purpose was to
invite reactions from interested parties and to launch a broad discussion among all
relevant stakeholders. To that end the Commission hosted a public hearing on 16
July 2002, where on the basis of the ideas set out in the Green Paper, the presentpractices of return policies and options for a future common EU policy on the returnof illegal residents were discussed. The hearing allowed an open exchange of viewsof representatives of the European institu tions, Member States, candidate countries,
countries of origin and transit, other countries of destin ation, international
organisations, regional aut horities, non-governmental or ganisations and academia
5.
In addition, as requested in the Green Pa per, written contributi ons were submitted to
the Commission6.
The informal JHA Council meeting of  13 and 14 September 2002 debated the
elements of a future return action programme as requested in Seville Conclusion No30, which, inter alia, stated:
“(…) The European Council calls on the Council and the Commission, within their
respective spheres of responsibility, to atta ch top priority to the following measures
contained in the plan: (…)
/g183 as regards expulsion and repatriation policie s, adoption by the end of the year, of
the components of a repatriation pr ogramme based on the Commission Green
                                                
1Cf. Conclusion No. 40.
2COM (2001) 672 final.
3Council Doc. 6621/1/02 rev.1, JAI 30.
4COM (2002) 175 final.
5For further information check: http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/immigration_en.htm .
6See aforementioned web pages.
7Paper; those components should include  the best possible facilities for early
return to Afghanistan; (…)”
The discussion at the JHA Council meeting stre ssed in particular the need to enhance
operational co-operation among Member States  in order to make return policies more
efficient in practice. The purpose of this Communication is to respond to this call and
to put forward an outline for a return ac tion programme taking into account, inter
alia, the contributions and discussions in response to the Green Paper. The
Communication focuses on the first elemen t of the Seville European Council’s
requirement, namely the concrete measures  deriving from the general policy on the
return of illegal residents, valid for all re gions or countries of origin or transit.
With respect to Seville’s more specific reference to the case of Afghanistan, this is
being addressed in a separate framework. No netheless, it is clearly closely linked and
must be coherent with the general policy line on return as set out in thisCommunication. The identification and impleme ntation of such elements for early
return to Afghanistan in particular w ill create a unique opportunity for the Member
States and the Commission to test the effectiveness of the new Community returnpolicy.
1.2. Working premises following the Commission’s Green Paper
In its Green Paper on a Community Return Policy on Illegal Residents, the
Commission set out a number of working pre mises for the purpose of incorporating
return policy as an integral part of a comprehensive Community immigration andasylum policy
7. This Communication is based on those same premises, the most
important elements of whic h are briefly recalled below.
1.2.1.  Focussing on the return of illegal residents
Although return policy in principle also covers the return of persons legally residing
in the EU but willing to return to thei r country of origin, this Communication
concentrates mainly on the return of persons residing illegally in the EU. Thesepersons do not or no longer fulfil the conditions  for entry to, presence in, or residence
on the territories of the Member States of the European Union either because theyentered illegally or overstayed their visa or residence permit, or because their asylumclaim has been finally rejected. The term “ illegal resident” is used following the legal
terminology of Article 63 (3) b) of the Tr eaty of the European Community. This term
must not be perceived as qualifying the persons as being illegal, but as qualifyingtheir status of not being in compliance with the law on entry and/or residence.
Nevertheless, it is useful to extend slight ly the focus of this Communication, only as
far as voluntary return is concerned, to cert ain groups of legal residents, who have a
temporary status or whose removal has been  temporarily suspended. This concerns in
particular persons under any form of intern ational protection and which is principally
of a temporary nature. Experience shows that in the context of voluntary return
programmes it makes sense not to limit the scope of such a programme too much.
                                                
7Cf. Part I – Return as an Integral Part of a Comprehensive Community Immigration and Asylum Policy
of COM (2002) 175 final.
81.2.2.  Safeguarding the integrity of immigration and asylum systems by the return of illegal
residents
The Communication deals with both aspects of the return of illegal residents:
voluntary or forced. To every extent possibl e, priority should be given to voluntary
return for obvious humane reasons, but al so due to costs, efficiency and
sustainability. More efficient ways to promote voluntary returns should therefore be
developed and implemented.
However, in cases where voluntary return fails, the forced return of illegal residents
becomes a necessity. A credible threat of forced return and its subsequentenforcement send a clear message to illegal residents in the Member States and topotential illegal migrants outside the EU that illegal entry and residence do not leadto the stable form of residence they hope to achieve
8. It must be made clear that, in
principle, third-country nati onals, without a legal status enabling them to stay, either
on a permanent or a temporary basis, a nd for whom a Member State has no legal
obligation to tolerate the residence, have to leave the EU.
The possibility of forced return is essential to ensure that admission policy is not
undermined and to enforce the rule of law,  which is a constituent element of an area
of freedom, security and justice. A credible policy on forced returns helps to ensurepublic acceptance for more openness towards persons who are in real need ofprotection, and for new legal immigrants against the background of more open
admission policies, particular ly for labour-driven migration.
1.2.3.  Respecting international obligations and human rights
Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union affirms that the Union is founded on the
principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms,
and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States. Inconsequence, the full respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms is the
natural and basic prer equisite for a European return policy.
As already set out in the Green Paper on a Community Return Policy on Illegal
Residents, the 1950 European Convention fo r the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and the Ch arter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union proclaimed in Nice in December 2000
9 contain provisions which are
applicable to a policy on return of illegal residents (Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13 and 14 ofthe ECHR and Articles 3, 4, 7, 19, 21, 24 a nd 47 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights). Specifically relevant to international protection are Article 18 of the Charterof Fundamental Rights and the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951
on the status of refugees and the Protocol  of 31 January 1967, in particular Articles
32 and 33 thereof. Finally, it should be emphasised that, according to the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989; in a ll actions related to
children, the child’s best interest must be a primary consideration.
                                                
8Cf. COM (2001) 672, p.6.
9OJ C 364 of 18 December 2000, p. 1.
91.2.4.  Co-operating with countries of orig in and transit on return and readmission
The European Council of Seville highligh ted – once again – the importance of the
co-operation with countries of origin  and transit on migration management, in
particular in the field of return and r eadmission. Third countries must readmit their
own nationals unlawfully present in a Me mber State and, under the same conditions,
nationals of other countries who can be s hown to have passed through their territories
before arriving in the EU10. Member States’ Justice and Interior Ministers recently
expressed their view that the main problem does not lie in strengthening the co-operation between Member States, but is rather attributable to the unwillingness ofthird countries to take back their nationa ls and to ensure sustainable return. They
have, therefore, the clear expectation that  the third countries concerned should be put
under pressure to be more co-operative both by the Community and by the Member
States.
Co-operation is needed at an administrative level to obtain return travel documents
for illegal residents who are not in possession of valid travel documents. In addition,when arriving in the country of return, th e readmission process at the points of entry,
often at airports, requires support. In certai n cases it might be helpful to negotiate a
readmission agreement at political level, which goes further than establishing theprinciples of readmission and sets out the practical procedures and modes of
transportation for return and readmission.
Co-operation with countries of  origin and transit on return and readmission is vital
and might be backed up – where appropriate and within the limits of the resourcesallocated in the framework of the financial ceilings – with technical or financialassistance from the EU side. Moreover, the refusal of constructive co-operationshould trigger the phased mechanism as defined in the Seville Conclusion No 36,which could, in case of persistent and unj ustified denial of such a co-operation,
include the unanimous adoption of measur es or positions under the Common Foreign
and Security Policy and other European Un ion policies after full use has been made
of existing Community mechanisms without success.
2. R
ETURN ACTION PROGRAMME
2.1. Phased integrated approach for interdependent elements of a Community return
policy
All Member States face the same obstacles to a smooth and timely return of illegal
residents to their country of origin: la ck of willingness to return voluntarily,
unknown residence or identity of the person, mi ssing travel documents or difficulties
in co-operation with some states in issuing identity or travel documents; resistance toreturn of the returnee; absence of adequa te means of transportation. Member States
have, therefore, developed a variety of  practices in order to overcome these
difficulties. Experience has been gained w ith different concepts or countries of
return. The improvement of co-operation between the Member States based on the
experience gained is vital to solve practical problems.
                                                
10Cf. conclusions no. 33-36.
10Information exchange on such experience is clearly the first step of any co-operation
among Member States. The improvement of existing schemes to exchange know-how and best practices is, therefore, importa nt and the best starting point for further
successful co-operation. This includes the exchange of return statistics, the
networking of authorities and the development of certain guidelines on bestpractices.
Such non-binding guidelines require to some extent mutual consent to the effect of a
given best practice
11. Moreover, when considering the question of whether joint
training of return practitioners should be organised, a basic common understanding
or certain minimum rules on return enforcement appear indispensable. Certain pre-defined training schemes or standards are needed to achieve common training results.
Concrete operational co-opera tion in terms of assistance in individual cases again
requires that certain rules be developed a nd adhered to, in par ticular for cases of
identification where the exchange of pers onal data is envisa ged. Moreover, mutual
assistance or even joint operations are destined to fail if the enforcement staff of oneMember State cannot comply with the lega l requirements of another Member State.
Common standards could, therefore, at least facilitate, if not create the possibility ofhaving joint operations. The legality of the enforcement act must be beyond doubtduring all stages of the return operation. This  is to be taken into  account in particular
in cases of returns in transit through another Member State.
A binding regime for the mutual recognition of  return decisions must be seen as the
key factor for an effective operational co-operation. The Commission believes that it
is time that the EU takes a fresh look at this key factor, as co-operation between
Member States would otherwise remain r udimentary. A return should be assumed as
being successful only if the illegal resident concerned has left the territory of the EUrather than of a particular Member State, if no other Member State has granted legalresidence. The preferred option is – as a ma tter of course – the sustainable return to
the country of origin. The mere continua tion of illegal residence in another Member
State is anyway an unsatisfactory option, ev en if it at present occurs in practice.
Consequently, Member States must ensure that the effect of a return measure is not
limited to their own territory. Only the binding mutual recognition of return decisionscan lay the foundations so that in the medium-term enforcement activities, including
mutual assistance and co-operation, finally l ead to the desired results. To that end an
approximation of the legal conditions for the ending of residence is a prerequisite.
A comprehensive Community return po licy should be gra dually developed by
identifying short-term measures that can be implemented immediately. These short-
term measures could focus on some prac tical steps for operational co-operation.
Nevertheless, a fully-fledged return ac tion programme must additionally contain
medium-term legislative measures, which will smoothen the co-operation among
Member States, such as the binding mu tual recognition of return decisions.
                                                
11Cf. the best practices found in the EU Schengen Catalogue, External borders control, Removal and
readmission: Recommendations and best practices, Council of the European Union, 28 February 2002.
112.2. Operational co-operation among Member States
2.2.1.  Definitions
Due to different concepts and legal system s, the terminology in the field of return
differs and often causes confusion. So me common definitions would already
facilitate the practical co-operation by  improving mutual understanding. The
discussion on the first set of definitions as proposed in the Green Paper has begun.
These definitions are for now of prelimin ary and non-binding character. However,
they may serve at a later stage as a starting point for legislative work in the field ofreturn. An updated set of definiti ons is attached (see Annex I).
The common definitions should be used in future documents insofar as possible in
order to streamline terminology and thereby to avoid linguistic confusion.
2.2.2.  Statistics and information exchange
The Conclusions of the JHA Council of May 2001 regarding common analysis and
the improved exchange of Sta tistics on Asylum and Migration12 consider that there is
a need for a comprehensive and coherent framework for improving statistics in thearea of asylum and migration. The Commission will put forward an Action Plan toimplement the Council Conclusi ons shortly. The Action Plan will cover a variety of
measures, such as new statistical met hods and the extension of existing data
collections. It shall be applicable to existing Community statistics on return measuresas well as to any future statistics th e Council may decide to start collecting.
Work has already started on one particular  objective of the Conclusions, namely the
publication of a comprehensive annual report  on statistics in the area of asylum and
migration. It is envisaged that the first report, on 2001 data, will be published in early
2003. In the section on return, figures will include the total number in each Member
State of rejected applicants for asylum  returned and other persons removed. In
addition, figures shall be broken down accord ing to the type of return (voluntary or
forced). Reliable and comparable figures will help to demonstrate more clearly thescale of the challenges faced by Member States in the area of return.
After the publication of the report an a ssessment should be made of what other
figures may be collected and how the return figures on types of return can be made
more comparable.
2.2.3.  Networking authorities
Co-operation starts with using contacts and with an informal exchange among
individuals. In recent years the inform ation exchange on return among Member
States has taken place mostly at ministerial expert level. Member States’practitioners tended to contact each other on an ad hoc basis, on the occasions of
bilateral or multila teral talks, workshops, meetings, conferences or seminars, which
did not necessarily take place in the EU context. A systematic overview of theorganisation and responsibilit y of Member States’ retu rn enforcement services,
                                                
12Cf. Council Doc. 7973/01 ASIM 10.
12which would facilitate working contacts amongst different Member State officials,
does not exist.
An up-to-date and easily accessible list of national contact points, including contact
points in national return travel documen t units and other related enforcement
services, would, therefore, assist in addressing other Member States’ enforcementservices.
The Commission has started to develop a we b-based Information and Co-ordination
Network (ICONet), which is designed as a secure Intranet website for MemberStates’ migration management services pr ovided by the Commission. This site could
include a section for return services. Th is return section could provide lists of
(central) return enforcement authorities,  which could be updated in real time.
The Commission will include a return section in the web-based Information and Co-
ordination Network (ICONet), which woul d provide contact details for Member
States’ return enforcement services.
2.2.4.  Best practices and guidelines
The exchange of best practices is anothe r important tool of operational co-operation.
Based on the experience in the Schengen context Member States have alreadydeveloped a catalogue with recommendati ons and best practices on removal and
readmission on 28 February 2002
13. On the same date the Council adopted
conclusions on the particular aspect of obt aining travel documents for the return of
illegal residents. On the basis of Member States’ contributions to a questionnaire, an
overview will be established on the different experiences made in the practice withlaissez-passer documents, e.g. if the EU standard travel document
14 is regularly
accepted by a third country or not.
This overview - and in the future other summaries on return and readmission related
matters - should be compiled, analysed and discussed. The creation of a handbook of
best practices, focusing on both, their imp lementation and the resources for their
implementation, could be  envisaged. This would help operational services to profit
from the experience of others and to ensu re coherence from third countries in the
processing of requests for the issuing a nd acceptance of return travel documents.
Moreover, such a handbook could contain ce rtain guidelines, which would also be
the common basis for joint training.
A handbook of best practices on return a nd readmission should be developed, which
contains guidelines for better performance based on best practices in Member States.
The first edition should focus on obtai ning return travel documents.
2.2.5.  Joint training
Return enforcement is a very difficult a nd demanding task and should be carried out
by a specialised service, which calls for specific know-how. Any person responsible
for carrying out such a high-profile task needs to have various skills such as proper
                                                
13EU Schengen Catalogue, External borders control, Removal and readmission: Recommendations and
best practices, Council of the European Union, 28 February 2002.
14Cf. OJ C 274 of 19 September 1996, p. 18.
13knowledge of the legal competencies, ad equate treatment of  returnees, the
management of incidents, intercultura l understanding and negotiation techniques.
Member States must provide special tr aining, which enables staff to conduct
removals in an appropriate manner.
The challenges of enforcing returns should be  the subject of joint seminars or regular
meetings of persons responsible for the deve lopment of training schemes used in the
training facilities. For the sake of efficiency it seems advisable to use initially thenetwork of national training facilities for border management, which was foreseen bythe Council’s action plan on illega l immigration of 28 February 2002
15. In case of
diverging responsibilities, cons ideration could be given to  the establishment of a
similar network of responsible  return training facilities.  In addition, Member States
should offer training courses to officials from other Member States in their training
facilities. This could start w ith subjects that are – wit hout further adjustment - of
common interest and that are not focussed on specific needs due to nationallegislation.
Nevertheless, joint training  schemes could be develope d, which would also cover
subjects where national practices differ, such as in the case of the use of restraints.Such schemes could be worked out more  easily on the basis of common standards
laid down in guidelines as described be fore in 2.2.4. Common standards have already
been requested in the Council’s plan for th e management of the external borders of
the Member States of the European Union of 13 June 2002 as far as standard security
measures are concerned, which should be set up with regard to return in aeroplanes,
ships and other means of transportation
16.
Intensive joint training should be made  possible with the creation of common
security standards, a network of return training facilities, the development of joint
training schemes and the participation in training courses of other Member States.
2.2.6.  Better identification and documentation
It should be recalled that the main obstacle to return is unclear identity and the lack
of proper travel documents. Po tential returnees are mostly responsible for this lack of
documentation since it is generally known th at countries of origin often delay or
deny the issuing of return travel docum ents because of missing information on
nationality or identity. In order to avoid removal, illegal residents therefore may hideor destroy their travel documents and not  infrequently claim a completely false
identity and/or nationality. As a consequence, lengthy and expensive procedureshave often to be carried out, which incl ude presentation at several embassies of
neighbouring third countries or a language or dialect analysis.
A key element in solving return-related problems is, therefore, the carrying out of
suitable identification measures during admin istrative procedures, e.g. at visa posts,
when the person concerned has an interest in providing correct data. Following the
Commission’s proposal the Council agreed on the establishment of an onlineEuropean Visa Identification System
17 in its action plan on illegal immigration of 28
                                                
15Council Doc. 6621/1/02 rev.1, JAI 30.
16Cf. Council Doc. 10019/02 FRONT 58.
17The present Commission’s working title is “Visa Information System”.
14February 2002. The Commission is currently assessing the technical feasibility of
such a Visa Information System.
The study should assess in particular an important return re lated component: the
storage of an electronic photo or other biometric identifier combined with the scan of
the travel document as shown by the visa applicant. The availability of thisinformation in a central database would ha ve a substantial adde d value, despite the
fact that photos are already today mostly requested for vi sa applications and travel
documents copied. The difficulty is that even existing information is only accessible
under the condition that the corresponding trav el document is available. This creates
a dependence on the willingness of its holder to present it, which, in cases of illegalresidence, is obviously low. The aim is, th erefore, to overcome this obstacle and to
identify persons without the need for their co-operation. With the help of thebiometric identifiers in the Visa Info rmation System apprehended undocumented
illegal residents could be retr ieved and, in cases of prior visa applications, identified.
The scan of the travel documents could be used as a clear proof for the third country
concerned, when return travel documents are requested.
It is expected that the system will reduce significantly the time and costs incurred as
a result of illegal residence, including the detention time for the returnee pendingremoval. In addition, the visa issuing pr actice could be reconsidered due to an
obvious change in the risk assessment. The return component in the Visa Information
System could allow a quicker and smoothe r handling of the whole visa practice,
because Member States would have a real chance to identify and remove mala fidetravellers, independent from the paper docu mentation or irrespective of in which
Member States’ representation a visa ha s been issued. Consequently, bona fide
travellers would profit from this system.
A central function of the future Visa Information System should be the return
component so that undocumented persons can be identified after apprehension in the
Member States with biometric means in order to retrieve the existing personal
information, in particular a scan of the tr avel document as presented in the visa post.
2.2.7.  Readmission and transit rules among Member States
As mentioned in the Commission’s Green Paper, readmission among Member States
takes place mostly on the basis of bilateral readmission agreements or informal co-operation
18. In 1999 Finland presented an initiative with a view to the adoption of a
Council Regulation dete rmining obligations as between the Member States for the
readmission of third-country nationals19. The discussion was suspended due to the
negotiations on the transfer of the mechanism for the determination of theresponsibility for asylum claims into Community law, Dublin II
20. Since the
negotiations on this subject have progressed  substantially, the general framework for
readmission among Member States concerni ng all illegally resi dent third-country
nationals should be put on the agenda again.
                                                
18Apart from the framework of the Dublin Convention and the mechanism for the determination of the
responsibility for asylum claims, and Art. 11 of  the Council Directive 2001/55/EC on temporary
protection. Cf. also COM (2001) 127 final., Art. 26 of the proposal on long-term residents.
19OJ C 353 of 7 December 1999, p.6.
20Cf. COM (2001) 447 final.
15Moreover, a common framework could be set for questions relating to transit during
the return process. Often it is necessary to use airports of other Member States due to
a lack of connections to the country of return. In such cases it is important to
establish a clear legal framework for th e transit procedure, e.g. the use and
competencies of escorts in transit and regulations on failure to return. To that endGermany has launched an initiative for a C ouncil Directive on assistance in cases of
transit for the purpose of return by air
21. In this context, account should be taken of
annex 9 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation22. Furthermore, it should
be discussed how other countri es of destination could be integrated in an EU air
transit regime.
In addition it is necessary to find pragmatic solutions for returnees crossing internal
borders of Member States, in  particular in cases of vol untary return. This problem is
particularly relevant when the returnee is  a national of a country, which is under visa
obligation, and would, therefore, need a visa to transit through the territory of other
Member States. In such a case, the use of  a secure standard travel document issued
by the Member State returning the person – which would be recognised by allMember States and made  equivalent to a visa  – could be envisaged.
The general framework for readmission amon g Member States should be put back on
the agenda once the Regulation on Dublin II is adopted based on a proposal by the
Commission.
Assistance in cases of transit in particular  for the purpose of return by air should be
subject to certain rules. Subsequently the transit by other means of transportation
should be tackled.
2.2.8.  Mutual assistance by immigration liaison officers
Immigration liaison officers (ILO), who are posted in countries of origin or transit,
have regular contacts with the local authorities, in particular the border guard andimmigration authorities at airports. Such work ing relations should be made available
for return-related tasks.
On the arrival of returnees in the country of return the presence of an ILO may be
helpful for a smoother hand-over procedur e for readmission. In addition, assistance
for the escorts could be offered. The ne twork of immigration liaison officers should
be further developed to that end.
Wherever possible Member States should offer and provide mutual assistance in
facilitating returns in the country of return.
2.2.9.  Joint Return Operations
Removals are increasingly carried out with charter flights for different reasons. Some
Member States use small charter jets in ca ses of non-compliant forced returns, which
have proven extremely expensive. Some Member States charter larger aircraft toallow for higher numbers to be returned with the necessary escorts. This practice is
                                                
21Cf. Council Doc. 10386/02 – MIGR 60 of 27 June 2002.
22“Chicago Convention” of 7 December 1944.
16also costly especially when  the capacity cannot be fully utilised, which often happens
due to the unavailability of the returnee because of absconding, illness or major
resistance of the returnee or legal action at a very late stage to avoid removal.
Member States could enforce returns more efficiently if they could share existing
capacities by organising joint operations. Provided that adequate transit arrangementsare established, Member States should seek  to carry out joint charter flights for
voluntary and forced returns. Joint charter flights have already been organised aspilot projects on a bi- or trilateral basis am ong Member States or other destination
countries. The development of this pr actice would not only have financial
advantages, but the signal effect would be higher as well.
Joint return operations should be organised by Member States starting with bi- and
multilateral joint charter flight s. In addition, other joint return operations by land or
sea could be envisaged, where appropriate.
2.2.10.  Better co-ordination
Enhanced co-operation as described above requires an adequate framework for co-
ordination. As mentioned before23, the creation of ICONet, the secure web-based
Information and Co-ordination Network, c ould be conducive to that end. Apart from
contact information this website could pr ovide for other return-related services. It
could contain a tool, which allows an online transit notification from one Member
State to another using a unified form as suggested in the German initiative on transitby air. Additionally, ICONet could be used to co-ordinate among Member Statesjoint charter flights to enforce returns. Furthermore, ICONet could also giveinformation on contact points in third c ountries or other information on third
countries that is relevant for return operations.
Nevertheless, a website cannot replace pers onal interaction, which is clearly needed
to reach an advanced level of co-opera tion. Co-operation and in particular co-
ordination could be assisted  by setting up a technical support facility as advocated by
the Commission in the recent Communication on the Common Policy on IllegalImmigration
24. Multiple tasks would be entrusted to such a facilitating body.
Gathering, analysing and disseminating information on return, moderating a dialogueamong return practitioners, organising expert meetings, preparing joint trainingcourses or helping to organise joint operati ons are just some examples of what could
be done. In order to prove the usefulness of  such a technical support facility it should
be limited in the beginning to a small secretariat, where a number of national expertsshould concentrate on certain priority activ ities. A technical support facility could be
financed with support offered by the ARGO administrative co-operation
programme
25, which is also available for return co-operation among Member States.
Better co-ordination of an enhanced op erational co-operati on on return should be
achieved with the development of the In formation and Co-ordination Network. In
addition, the creation of a technical support facility could be envisaged to that end.
                                                
23Cf. 2.2.3
24COM (2001) 672 final.
25Cf. Council Decision of 13 June 2002, OJ L 161 of 19 June 2002, p.11
172.3. Common minimum standards to ensure efficient return policies
Co-operation among Member States as desc ribed in the chapter 2.2 above is likely to
be successful if based on a common unders tanding on key issues. Consequently,
common standards should be set in the medium -term in order to facilitate the work of
the services involved and to allow enhan ced co-operation among Member States. In
the long term such standards should es tablish rules for ad equate and similar
treatment of illegal residents, who are the subject of measures terminating aresidence, regardless of the Member State which enforces the removal. For thesereasons the Commission intends to take the appropriate initiatives.
2.3.1.  Mutual recognition of return decisions
The efficient return of illegal reside nts, who have absconded after expulsion
decisions issued by one Member State and have been apprehended in another
Member State is of major importance to the operational co-operation on returnenforcement in the EU, in particular, wh ere inner border controls do not exist. An
expulsion decision issued by one Member State should be enforced in another
Member State without the latter having  to issue a new expulsion decision. The
Directive 2001/40/EC on the mutual reco gnition of decisions on the expulsion of
third-country nationals
26 underlines this necessity, a lthough it has not established a
binding framework.
The mutual recognition of expulsion decisi ons regarding persons who have applied
for asylum requires special attention, fo r Member States interpret the Geneva
Convention in different ways and also  have different grounds for subsidiary
protection. According to the Tampere European Council of 1999, a common asylum
procedure and a uniform status is the objective in the longer term. The SevilleCouncil of June 2002 confirme d this objective, adding deadlines for specific
Directives to be adopted. The Commission therefore reiterates its step-by-step-
approach, proposed in its Co mmunication of November 2000
27, emphasising the link
between mutual recognition and harmonisation on asylum.
The establishment of a legally binding framework for mutual recognition of all
measures terminating a residence, in particular expulsion decisions, should be
integrated in a future proposal on return procedures.
2.3.2.  Removal
Removal, as the closing act of enforcing the return of the person concerned, should
be subject to minimum standards, safegu arding both the rights of the person
concerned and the effectiveness of the removal. Minimum standards will facilitateoperational co-operation between Member States during transit or joint removaloperations as well.
As long as Member States have different asylum systems in place, a final safeguard
for non-refoulement appears necessary to enab le Member States to comply with their
international obligations, if the risk for refoulement has not been examined before.
                                                
26Cf. OJ L 149 of 2 June 2001, p. 34.
27COM (2000) 755 final.
18Such a final safeguard should refer to the asylum procedure in place, which includes
an effective remedy.
Minimum standards should also strike a proper balance between preventing abuse
due to feigned diseases while taking into account the real phys ical state and mental
capacity of the persons concerned. If the returnee claims physical or mental illnessimmediately before departure, this could be an attempt to frustrate the removal, but itcould also be a genuine claim. A proper assessment must be carried out, especiallywith regard to vulnerable groups such as minors and pregnant women. Minimum
standards should also deal with the cond itions under which a famil y can be separated
during the removal procedure.
Member States should be allowed to rem ove a person despite his or her (physical)
resistance. Yet it must be clear that coercive measures have their limits. The physicalintegrity of the returnee during the removal is of utmost importance. The returnee’spsychological condition must also be resp ected. Standards are needed covering the
intensity of coercive measures. As far as removals by air are concerned the
IATA/CAWG Guidelines on Deportation and Escort could provide the basis for
developing EU provisions on esco rting and use of restraints.
Co-operation on removals touches on the question of how Member States can
streamline their present return practice in relation to specific countries of origin in
case the actual situation makes removals questionable due to compellinghumanitarian reasons (a contemporary example is Angola). If Member States want toco-operate on this, it seems logical to have minimum standards on the assessment ofsuch situations. This could include consu ltation of organisations such as UNHCR or
UN Administrations (e.g. UNMIK in Kosovo) or other relevant actors.
Minimum standards on removal should be se t at EU level, setting a final safeguard
for non-refoulement requirements in a futu re Directive on Minimum Standards for
Return Procedures, defining common guide lines for removal on the physical state
and mental capacity of the returnee as well as on the returnee’s integrity during the
removal operation. Moreover, an assessm ent mechanism should be established,
which would allow assessment of the actua l situation in certain countries as to
whether removals are feasible or not.
2.3.3.  Preconditions for expulsion decisions
Decisions on expulsion are taken at Member States level, until now according to
national law. The Council already provi ded for initial standards for expulsion
decisions in Directive 2001/40/EC on the mutual recognition of decisions on the
expulsion of third-country na tionals adopted in May 200128. This Directive provides,
inter alia, that a third-count ry national is the subject of  an expulsion decision in case
of a serious and actual threat to public orde r or to national security in two groups of
cases.
In order to further develop the idea of mutual recognition of expulsion decisions, the
Commission takes as a starting point the di stinction between mandatory reasons for
expulsion decisions on the grounds of extr aordinary danger for public order or
                                                
28Cf. OJ L 149 of 2 June 2001, p. 34.
19national security and other legitimate reasons, which would normally lead to an
expulsion decision.
This distinction should take proper account  of the conditions and safeguards that
have to be fulfilled in orde r to end the legal residence of certain groups. Privileged
third-country nationals such  as long-term residents29 or family members of a Union
citizen may only be removed for grave reas ons of public security and public order.30
Special considerations should also apply in  the case of third-country nationals who
are born in a Member State and have neve r lived in their country of nationality.
The expulsion of refugees as well as other persons under other forms of international
protection requires special attention, for they can only be removed in accordance
with international obligations such as the 1951 Geneva Convention and the European
Convention on Human Rights. In general, a decision for expulsion should in all cases
be based on the individual situation. The hum an rights of the person concerned and
whether the measure is proportionate must  be adequately considered. A judicial
remedy should be available, including the possibility to ask for suspensive effect.
Minimum standards on expulsion decisions should be set at EU level, defining
mandatory and other grounds for expulsion, identifying groups with specific
protection needs and setting minimum safeguards for judicial review in the
framework of a future Directive on Minimum Standards for Return Procedures.
2.3.4.  Ending of legal residence
The Commission proposes that a person can be  obliged to leave the territory of a
Member State from the moment legal reside nce has ended. This includes rejection of
an application for residence (either on gr ounds related to intern ational protection or
migration), expiration of a residence permit or withdrawal / revocation of it (e.g. ongrounds of public order or national security),  but also the ending of illegal residence
of a person who has never had legal reside nce in the Member State concerned. Legal
residence is also considered to have ende d if a remedy against a decision concerning
the right to stay on the territory of the Member State has no suspensive effect. Allthese persons should have a legal obligati on to leave the Member State immediately
or, if a time limit for departure has been set, before the expiry of the time limit. Seenfrom the EU level, the obligation to leav e should be an obligation to leave the EU
and not just a Member State.
Co-operation among EU Member States w ould ensure that persons who have no
legal residence in one Member State will not leave for another Member State if they
will not be allowed legal en try and residence there. To that end, the Commission will
elaborate on the approximation of measures terminating illegal residence applicable
throughout the EU.
2.3.5.  Detention pending removal
The Commission acknowledges the need for Member States to provide for the
possibility of detention pending removal. However, a fair balance should be struck
                                                
29Cf. Art. 13 of COM (2001) 127 final.
30Cf. the clarifications in ECJ, case C-459/99, MRAX, judgment of 25 July 2002.
20between the Member States’ need for efficient procedures and safeguarding the basic
human rights of the illegal resident. Minimum standards at EU level defining thecompetencies of responsible authorities a nd the preconditions for detention should be
set also in order to make operational co-operation between Member States during
transit or joint removal operations easi er. These minimum standards could cover:
/g183 Grounds for detention pending removal. This covers detention of the illegal
resident concerned in order to obtain return travel documents or to prevent the
illegal resident from absconding durin g the removal or during transit.
/g183 Identification of the groups of persons  who should generally not or only under
specific conditions be detained:
– unaccompanied children and persons under the age of 18
– the elderly, especially where supervision is required
– pregnant women, unless there is the clear threat of absconding and medical advice
approves detention
– those suffering from serious medi cal conditions or the mentally ill
– those where there is independent evidence that they have been tortured or
mistreated while being detained before they arrived in the EU
– people with serious disabilities
/g183 Rules concerning the issuing of a dete ntion order. This could include the
proportionality of detention and the po ssibilities of suitabl e alternatives to
detention such as reporting duties, obligatory residence, bail bonds or even
electronic monitoring.
/g183 Provisions on the judicial control. A judi cial body should be competent to issue or
to revise the detention order.
/g183 Time limits for the duration of detenti on pending removal. Although the grounds
for detention (e.g. identification or pr evention from absconding) has an inherent
limitation of the duration, the Commission cons iders it necessary to provide for an
absolute time limit and time limits for judicial review on the continuation ofdetention.
/g183 Rules on the conditions of detention, in  particular on acco mmodation standards
but also on legal assistance, to ensure humane treatment in all detention facilities
in the Member States. The Commission’s considered opinion is that foraccommodation purposes returnees should as  far as possible be separated from
convicts in order to a void any criminalisation.
Minimum standards on detention pending removal should be set at EU level,
defining competencies of responsible au thorities and the preconditions for detention
in the framework of a future Directive on Minimum Standards for Return
Procedures.
212.3.6.  Proof of exit and re-entry
As indicated in the Green Paper a satisfactor y proof of exit is im portant, in particular
in cases of voluntary return to ensure sustainable return and to allow preferentialtreatment to voluntary returnees, namely to  avoid that in these cases persons are
banned from a later legal re-entry due to a lack of proof of their previous voluntary
exit. One possibility would be to devel op incentives for returnees to report back
personally at a consular post of a Member  State in the country of origin. Where
applicable, the proof of exit could also be  issued by a reliable organisation, which
has been involved in the return process.
Applying the principle of the priority of  voluntary return, the legal consequences of
the voluntary or forced return on an appli cation for a subsequent re-entry should be
assessed. A refusal of a future visa application in order to re-enter the EU some timein the future should not be based only upon the fact that he or she has previously
stayed in a Member State illegally, if the person has returned voluntarily. On theother hand restrictions should be im posed in cases of forced return.
Common definitions are needed for dete rmining the circumstances under which a
new application for a visa or a residence permit is excluded. The refusal of entry list
of the SIS according to Art. 96 of the Convention implementing the Schengen
agreement or the future Visa Informati on System could be used for this purpose.
2.4. Elements for integrat ed return programmes
Different patterns of return programmes and models for their execution have been
developed by the international community in general over the last decade. There arefundamentally two types of return proce sses: strictly voluntary return where an
individual decides of his or her own accord  to return and is helped to do so; and
situations where the state authorities oblige return with due and proper regard tointernational law and the human rights of  the persons concerned. There is also a
hybrid situation in which a person accepts the obligation of the return process butalso accepts assistance from the authorities.
International organisations have  been particularly active in this field for all types of
returns and have managed both Europe an Community and nationally-financed
projects with varying degrees of succe ss, again depending on circumstances. In
general, the Commission’s experience, starting with the Joint Actions in theframework of the “Third Pillar” of the Maastricht Treaty from 1997 to 1999
31 which
preceded to the establishment of the European Refugee Fund in 200032 has shown
that successful return projects require all or most of the following elements: pre-return advice and counselling, training /employment assistance, assistance for
travelling to and/or re-establishment in the country of origin/housing, follow-up
assistance and counselling post-return. Mo reover, the implementing agency must
have sufficient links to the authoritie s and non-governmental community in the
country of origin as well as adequate fac ilities in the field (for example, locally-based
staff, at least on a temporary basis, with  knowledge of local la nguages) and the skills
necessary to select, where this is appropriate, returnees with the potential to succeed
                                                
31Budget lines B7-6008 and B-5-803.
32Council Decision of 28th September 2000 (2000/596/EC), OJ L252 p.12.
22once returned. Analysis of the return-rela ted projects accepted for financing by all
these instruments strongly suggests that such projects are mainly concentrated in alimited number of Member States. This is due to the circumstances in the MemberState, both the number of potential returnees  and the competing needs of other issues
needing finance such as reception facilities or integration programmes.
Against these factors must be weighed the cost/benefit of return programmes. Some
projects (for example concerning Somalis liv ing in Europe) can be very costly per
head. Furthermore, there are practically  non-quantifiable factors such as the
likelihood of returnees attempting to come  back to their host country. Whether a
person, once returned to his or her country of origin, will remain there, depends on a
series of factors, such as the legal status in the host country and the issuing of a travel
documents that permit re-immigration, their economic and family circumstances, etc.
Information should be made available - as  early as possible - for potential returnees
on the possibilities for voluntary return to the country of origin. Such informationshould comprise information on return pr ogrammes, vocational or other training
available, on the situation in the country of return and on possibilities for establishing
a new life. Vocational or other training, which could be of use in the country of
return, might be offered, either  before return or in the country of return. Assistance
and counselling should be offere d at all stages of the return process starting from an
early stage of residence in the Member States until some time after arrival in thecountry of destination ensuring sustainabl e return. In general, incentives should be
assessed, which would encour age potential returnees to go back voluntarily. The
Commission has, therefore, ordered a study on incentives for return, which will beavailable by the end of the year. On the basis of the study further steps should be
considered to create sufficient incentives for return.
The general conclusion to be drawn from  past experience in managing return
programmes is that they must be flexible regarding their timing and administration inorder to respond to circumstances on the ground. This requires a more cohesive use
of Community-based programmes and nati onal programmes backed by clear policy
guidelines to that end.
In addition to the Joint Actions of 1997 to 1999 and the European Refugee Fund
(ERF), the Commission has also used budget line B7-667 (for which a legal basiswill be proposed by the end of 2002) in re lation to the activities of the High Level
Working Group on Asylum and Immigration for return-related issues. TheCommission will shortly be entering a phase when it will be considering the future ofthe ERF one of whose main strands is voluntary return. Given the requirements of
the European Council in Seville
33, the Commission will need to reflect on both the
optimum financial and co-ordination mechanisms for return. The Commission willpresent a report to the Council in the early autumn of 2002 on the budgetary aspectsof the conclusions of the European Council.
The scope of financial assistance for re turn should cover voluntary return, forced
return and support for return of irre gular migrants in transit countries.
                                                
33Cf. no. 33 of the conclusions.
23The voluntary return element in a financial assistance for return would target return
and reintegration of both illegal residents and legal residents, if they wish to returnand there is a public interest in supportin g this. Items like individual travel costs,
transport of personal possessions, the first expenses after return and a limited start-upsupport could be taken into consideration in this framework.
The second element of such a financal assistance sche me strictly limited to illegal
residents - would be the fi nancial support for enforcement measures. This element
would contribute emphasising  the need for solidarity and burden-sharing among
Member States on return with regard for instance to travel costs for returnees andescorts.
The third element of a financial assistance for return would focus on interception.
Third countries could be assisted in retu rning irregular migrants insofar as they do
not fulfil the entry conditions of the country concerned, they are not in need forinternational protection and the persons are in transit with a view to entering the EUillegally.
The EU should develop its own approach for integrated return programmes. Such
programmes should cove r all phases of the return pr ocess, starting with the pre-
departure phase, the return as such, the re ception and reintegration in the country of
return.
Integrated return programmes should be tailored to specif ic countries to take the
specific situation, the case load and n eeds of the country duly into account.
Further consideration should be given to a financial instrument , which might cover
voluntary return, forced return and support fo r return of irregular migrants in transit
countries. The Commission will come back to this issue soon when presenting the
report on financial instruments in the area of immigration and asylum.
2.5. Intensification of co-operation with third countries
In order to strengthen the co-ordination and improve complement arity and coherence
of the external actions of the Union, the in tensification of EU co -operation with third
countries on return should be carried on, on a case by case basis, in the context of the
elaboration or revision of the country stra tegy papers and regional strategy papers,
which elaboration or revision falls under the Commission responsibility and to which
the Member States are fully associated. Furthermore, the specific situation of thecandidate countries shall always be take n into account, which includes making full
use of the mechanisms of the Association agreements.
2.5.1.  Enhanced administrative co-operation
The intensification of co-operation with third countries on return would start with
enhancing administrative co -operation. Where appropria te, the EU could offer
support in the institution and capacity buildin g for the reception and reintegration of
returnees. Technical co-operation migh t be envisaged as well. Principally,
consideration should be given to all reintegration measures , which help to ensure the
sustainability of the return, such as e.g. start-up support for housing or thereintegration in the labour market including  vocational training. Finally, the return
24dimension should be part of the overall po litical dialogue on migration related issues
with the country concerned.
The EU should promote enhanced administr ative co-operation with third countries,
which should address all stages a nd levels of the return process.
2.5.2.  Community readmission agreements
The Seville European Council also called for the speeding-up of the conclusion of
readmission agreements already being negotiated. As previously stated in its GreenPaper, the Commission will therefore make a further effort to push forward thecurrent negotiations in order to complete them in due time and – to the extentpossible - in line with the negotiating directives issued to it. To achieve this, it willneed a greater level of political and dipl omatic support from the Member States than
they have been willing to provide so far. However, from the very diverging course ofnegotiations with the first seven countri es, it is already possible to draw one
important conclusion. As readmission agreements  work mainly in the interest of the
Community, third-countries are naturally ve ry reluctant to accept such agreements.
Their successful conclusion, therefore, depends very much on the positive incentives
("leverage") at the Commission's disposal. In that context it is important to note that,in the field of JHA, there is little that can be offered in return. In particular visaconcessions or the lifting of visa requirements can be a re alistic option in exceptional
cases only (e.g. Hong Kong, Macao); in most cases it is not. It is, therefore, essentialto give more thought to the crucial ques tion of what other incentives, not only from
the JHA area but from all Community areas (e.g. trade expansion, technical/financial
assistance, additional development aid etc.) could be offered to the relevant countries
in return. Although the Seville European  Council stressed – once again – the EU’s
willingness to provide, within the limits of the financial perspective, adequatetechnical and financial assist ance, no satisfactory answer was given to the question of
how to deal with countries that, despite this  offer, are not interested in concluding a
readmission agreement.
The Commission will, therefore, continue its reflection on incentives or
compensations in the context of readmission agreements in consultation with the
Member States, in particular by reflecting on the possibility of increasing
complementarity with other policy areas, including political and diplomatic measures
by Member States, in order to help achieve the Community’s objectives in the field
of return and readmission.
2.5.3.  Transit and admission arrangements and agreem ents with other third countries
If direct returns to the country of origin are not possible or appropriate, other avenues
of co-operation with third countries should be explored. In particular in the case of
practical obstacles, such as complicated or  non-existing travel connections to the
country of origin, possible transit countri es could be approached with a view to
gaining their support relating to the – voluntary or involuntary – transit of returneesthrough their territory.
Transit provisions should be systematical ly included in any Community readmission
agreement and, in the absence of such ag reements, separate transit arrangements
should be envisaged, where appropriate.
253. CONCLUSIONS
Following the mandate of the Seville European Council of 21 and 22 June the
Commission herewith presents the essential elements of a Return Action Programme,which the Council is asked to e ndorse by the end of the year.
The Commission has identified a number of ac tions, in particular in the area of
operational co-operation, whic h require a stronger commitment of the Member States
enforcement services and could be achi eved in the short term. In addition, a
Community Return Action Programme re quires a vision which would build a
comprehensive package for me dium-term measures at EU level. This should include
enhanced operational co-operation base d on common co-ordination and – where
necessary – legislative adjustments.
The Council is invited to endor se the Return Action Progra mme before the end of the
year in line with the mandate of the Seville European Council.
26ANNEX –Definitions
Term Definition
Return Comprises the process of going back to one’s country of origin, transit or another third
country, including preparation and implementation. The return may be voluntary orenforced.
Illegal resident Any person who does not, or no longer, fulfil the conditions for presence in, or
residence on the territory of the Member State of the European Union.
Illegal entrant Any person who does not fulfil the conditions for entry in the territory of the Member
States of the European Union.
Voluntary return The assisted or independent departure to the country of origin, transit or another third
country based on the will of the returnee.
Forced return The compulsory return to the country of origin, transit or another third country, on the
basis of an administrative or judicial act.
Readmission Act by a state accepting the re-entry of an individual (own nationals, third-country
nationals or stateless persons), who has been found illegally entering to, being present
in or residing in another state.
ReadmissionagreementAgreement setting out reciprocal obligations on the contracting parties, as well as
detailed administrative and operational procedures, to facilitate the return and transit ofpersons who do not, or no longer fulfil the conditions of entry to, presence in orresidence in the requesting state.
Expulsion Administrative or judicial act, which states – where applicable – the illegality of the
entry, stay or residence or terminates the legality of a previous lawful residence e.g. incase of criminal offences.
Expulsion order Administrative or judicial decision to lay the legal basis for the expulsion.
Detention pendingremovalAct of enforcement, deprivation of personal liberty for return enforcement purposes
within a closed facility.
Detention order Administrative or judicial decision which forms the legal basis for the detention
pending removal
Removal34Act of enforcement, which means the physical transportation out of the country.
Removal order Administrative or judicial decision to lay the legal basis for the removal (in some legal
systems synonymous with expulsion order).
Legal re-entry Admission of a third-country national or stateless person to the territory of the Member
State of the European Union after prior departure.
Rejection Refusal of entry to a state
Transit Passage through a country while travelling from a country of departure to the country
of destination.
                                                
34The English word “deportation” is also used in this context.