COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Analytical Supporting Document Accompanying the 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
Date: 2025-05-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, foreign national, illegal migration, repatriation grant, residence permit, return migration, right of asylum, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.5.2025  SWD(2025) 250 final  Addendum to the 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 - COM(2025) 101 final of 11 March 2025 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Analytical Supporting Document Accompanying the 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  
 
 
Table of Contents 
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2 

1.1. Legal context ................................................................................................................... 3 

1.2. Operational context ......................................................................................................... 6 

1.3. Evidence base................................................................................................................ 13 

2. Definition of problems and challenges ................................................................................ 15 

3. Objectives of an effective EU return policy ........................................................................ 21 

4. Ways forward considered .................................................................................................... 23 

4.1. Alternative A: Bringing improvements while working within the current framework 24 

4.2.  Alternative  B:  New  legal  framework  (directive  or  regulation)  introducing  new  tools, 
streamlined rules and simplification to make return rules more efficient and put in place an 
overall more harmonised common system for returns ......................................................... 25 

4.3.  Alternative  C:  New  legal  framework  (regulation)  setting  out  streamlined  and  fully 
harmonised rules .................................................................................................................. 26 

5. A comparative analysis of alternatives A, B and C ............................................................. 27 

6. Identified way forward ......................................................................................................... 39 

Annex I – Stakeholder consultations ....................................................................................... 45 

Annex II – EMN meetings, informs and studies...................................................................... 50 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

The safe and dignified return of third-country nationals with no right to stay in the EU is an 
essential  element  of  the  integrated,  sustainable  and  comprehensive  approach  to  asylum  and 
migration that the EU is putting in place. A credible and effective policy on return is crucial for 
upholding  the  credibility  of  migration  and  asylum  policies.  Despite  substantial  efforts  at 
political and operational level1, the current EU return system does not deliver. Statistics show 
that only around 20% of the third-country nationals ordered to leave the Union actually do2. 
This creates significant operational challenges for the Member States and erodes citizens’ trust 
in  the  EU’s  capacity  to  manage  migration  and  to  ensure  the  effective  functioning  of  the 
Schengen area. The European Parliament’s Spring 2024 Eurobarometer reported that less than 
a quarter of respondents were satisfied with the EU’s actions to manage crises pertaining to the 
handling of migration3.  

In  this  context,  President  von  der  Leyen’s  2024-2029  Political  Guidelines4  announced  the 
intention to put forward a new common approach on returns, with a new legislative framework 
to speed up and simplify the process. This came as a response to the European Council’s calls 
for a unified, comprehensive, and effective policy on return and readmission5. In October 2024, 
the European Council invited the Commission to submit a new legislative proposal on return, 
as a matter of urgency6. 

Action is needed to improve both the effectiveness of the EU’s internal return system and the 
external cooperation with third countries on readmission, with the aim of creating a positive 
dynamic, where there is more capacity for fast and effective returns and where Member States 
can fully capitalise on the results of the EU’s external actions. 

With the momentum given by the adoption and the implementation of the Pact on Migration 
and Asylum7, return remains the missing piece. The implementation of the Pact will lead to a 
more efficient and quicker processing of the applications for international protection. Aligning 
returns to that stepped-up pace will be key to avoiding that our systems are overwhelmed and 
to ensuring that third-country nationals are returned. Yet, the current return policy, based on the 
2008 Return Directive, which is no longer fit for purpose, is not effective nor efficient enough 

1  2015  Action  Plan  on  increasing  effectiveness  of  the  EU  system  of  returning  irregular  migrants;  2021 
Communication on enhancing cooperation on return and readmission as part of a comprehensive EU migration 
policy;  2021  EU  Strategy  on  Voluntary  Return  and  Reintegration;  2023  Policy  document  on  an  operational 
strategy for more effective returns. 
2 Eurostat, Enforcement of immigration legislation. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/explore/all/popul?lang=en&subtheme=migr.migr_man.migr_eil&displ
ay=list&sort=category&extractionId=migr_eiord1, accessed 6 March 2025.  
3  Eurobarometer,  Survey 
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3272, accessed 20 February 2025. 
4  European  Commission,  Political  Guidelines  for  the  next  European  Commission  2024-2029.  Available  at: 
https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en.  
5 Conclusions of the European Council of 9 February 2023, EUCO 1/23; Conclusions of the European Council of 
17 October 2024, EUCO 25/24. 
6 Conclusions of the European Council of 17 October 2024, EUCO 25/24. 
7 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a New Pact on migration and Asylum (COM(2020) 609 
final). 

the  European  Union.  Available 

3272:  Public  Opinion 

at: 

in 

2 

 
 
 
as it suffers from several challenges. The sources of those difficulties are varied and stem from 
the inefficient and diverging national procedures, the lack of cooperation of the third-country 
nationals  and  the  insufficient  cooperation  from  third  countries  in  readmitting  their  own 
nationals. 

For those reasons, the Commission proposed on 11 March 2025 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 Union8 (hereinafter: “the proposal”). The proposal presents a 
revamped legal framework that updates the return legislation of 2008, aligns it with relevant 
developments in the migration field, including the Pact on Migration and Asylum, makes it fit 
for today’s needs and challenges, and helps preserve the Schengen area without internal border 
controls. 

The proposal seeks to simplify and enhance the efficiency of the return process, while ensuring 
full adherence to fundamental rights and in full compliance with international and human rights 
law and international refugee law, thereby reinforcing the EU's commitment to an EU migration 
policy that is fair and firm. The European Council on 20 March 2025 invited the co-legislators 
to swiftly examine the recent Commission proposal on returns9. 

This Staff Working Document provides detailed information on the context, problem definition, 
objectives,  alternatives  considered,  as  well  as  the  rationale  regarding  the  identified  way 
forward. 

1.1. Legal context 

The current legal framework for the return of third-country nationals with no legal right to stay 
in the EU is governed by Directive 2008/115/EC10, known as the Return Directive. It lays 
down common standards and procedures to be applied in Member States for returning illegally 
staying  third-country  nationals.  Discussions  in  the  European  Parliament,  dedicated  expert 
working groups11 and with academia and stakeholders have often highlighted the limitations of 
the current Return Directive, as new challenges on the ground have arisen in an increasingly 
complex migration context. Mutual recognition of return decisions is governed by the 2001 
Directive  on  the  mutual  recognition  of  decisions  on  the  expulsion  of  third-country 
nationals12,  complemented  by  Council  decision  2004/191/EC  that  aimed  at  organising 
financial  compensations  between  Member  States  when  recognising  each  other’s  return 

8 European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on 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, COM(2025) 101 final. 
9 Conclusions of the European Council of 20 March 2025, EUCO 1/25. 
10  Directive  2008/115/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  December  2008  on  common 
standards  and  procedures  in  Member  States  for  returning  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals  (OJ  L  348, 
24.12.2008, p. 98). 
11 Council Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion (IMEX); Contact Group - Return Directive 
(E02232). 
12 Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-
country nationals (OJ L 149, 02.06.2001, p. 34). 

3 

 
 
 
 
decisions13. However, currently few Member States use the possibility offered by the Directive 
because of practical or legal obstacles. 

The 2018 proposal to revise the Return Directive14 sought to update the legal framework and 
improve  its  efficiency. While  the  Council  reached  a  partial  general  approach  in  201915,  the 
European Parliament did not reach a position, and negotiations remained at a standstill during 
the last Commission’s mandate16. 

Since the adoption of the Return Directive in 2008, the EU migration policy has progressed 
significantly and return rules link closely to several legal acts managing migration and borders 
in the Union. In 2019, the new Frontex Regulation17 was adopted, with the core objective of 
implementing the European integrated border management at national and Union level, which 
is a necessary corollary to the free movement of persons within the Schengen area. With returns 
being  part  of  the  European  integrated  border  management,  the  Frontex  Regulation  was 
designed to enhance the Agency's ability to support return-related tasks. 

In  September  2020,  the  Commission  presented  the  Pact  on  Migration  and  Asylum18 
(hereinafter: “the Pact”) that aims at modernising a large part of the EU migration procedures 
and  setting  out  a  more  comprehensive  approach  to  migration  management.  One  of  the  key 
objectives of the Pact is the establishment of a common EU system for returns that ensures 
effective returns in full respect of fundamental rights and that aligns with the ambition for a 
more  effective  overall  migration  management  system.  On  14  May  2024,  the  legal  acts 
composing the Pact were adopted. Those instruments include a closer link between rejected 
asylum applications and return decisions19, as well as a return border procedure set out in the 
Return Border Procedure Regulation20. 

At the same time, the legal and operational architecture sustaining the well-functioning of the 
Union and the Schengen area has evolved significantly. As effective returns are a necessary 
measure in an area without internal border controls, additional common tools have been put in 
place  through  the  reinforced  role  of  EU  Agencies,  as  well  as  through  an  update  of  core 

13 Council Decision 2004/191/EC of 23 February 2004 setting out the criteria and practical arrangements for the 
compensation of the financial imbalances resulting from the application of Directive 2001/40/EC on the mutual 
recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals (OJ L 60, 27.2.2004, p. 55). 
14 European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Common 
Standards and Procedures in Member States for Returning Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals (Recast), 
COM(2018) 634 final. 
15  Council  of  the  European  Union,  Partial  General Approach  on  the  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council on Common Standards and Procedures in Member States for Returning Illegally 
Staying Third-Country Nationals (Recast), 2019. 
16 European Parliament, Proposal for a Recast of the Return Directive, Legislative Train Schedule. Available at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-new-era-for-european-defence-and-security/file-
proposal-for-a-recast-of-the-return-directive. 
17  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1896  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  November  2019  on  the 
European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624. 
18 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a New Pact on Migration and Asylum (COM(2020) 609 
final). 
19  Regulation  (EU)  2024/1348 of  the European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  May  2024  establishing  a 
common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU. 
20 Regulation (EU) 2024/1349 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a return 
border procedure, and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1148. 

4 

 
 
 
functionalities for large-scale IT systems, such as the Schengen Information System and its 
return  alerts. As  part  of  the  Schengen  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism,  a  thematic 
Schengen evaluation on return was carried out in 2024, to identify operational solutions that 
enhance the effective and swift return of third-country nationals with no right to stay. 

Substantial  efforts  have  been  made  to  improve  cooperation  on  readmission  with  third 
countries. The EU has concluded readmission agreements with 18 third countries21, which set 
out  clear obligations  and procedures  for the third-country authorities  and  Member States to 
readmit  own  nationals  illegally  staying  on  their  respective  territories.  In  addition  to  the 
readmission agreements, the EU  has  concluded non-binding readmission arrangements with 
six third countries22, which set a framework for structured cooperation on readmission. The 
Samoa  Agreement,  the  new  Partnership  Agreement  with  the  Organisation  of  African, 
Caribbean and Pacific States23 (ACP), has introduced clear obligations on readmission with 77 
third countries in these regions. Through Article 25a of the Visa Code24, the EU has introduced 
a mechanism to foster cooperation with third countries by linking visa policy with cooperation 
on readmission, thus providing a first answer to the repeated calls of the European Council to 
use all relevant policies and tools to increase returns. Visa measures have been proposed for 
six third countries, and adopted for two, leading in most cases to progress in cooperation on 
readmission. The EU's intensive engagement following the proposals for, or the adoption of, 
visa  measures  has  led,  for  example,  to  the  start  of  regular  dialogues  on  readmission,  to 
significant  improvements  of  the  quantitative  indicators  of  cooperation  (e.g.  the  number  of 
travel documents issued), and to policy changes, including the acceptance of forced returns and 
charter flights, where this was previously not the case. Following the proposal and the adoption 
of measures, Member States have overall increased operational engagement with the priority 
third countries, including by submitting more readmission requests.  

This coherent approach by the EU and its Member States, both on the external side with 
the third countries concerned and internally, contributes to the effectiveness of the mechanism. 
Incentives and leverages are also being created in other policy areas. The Flexible Mechanism 
under  the  Neighbourhood,  Development  and  International  Cooperation  Instrument 
(NDICI) provides for a flexible incentive-driven approach for better cooperation on migration 
management,  including  return  and  readmission.  The  revised  Generalised  Scheme  of 
Preferences  Regulation25  (GSP),  proposed  in  2021,  sought  to  introduce  the  lack  of 
cooperation  on  readmission  as  one  of  the  grounds  to  withdraw  trade  preferences  from  the 
beneficiary countries. However, the co-legislators did not reach an agreement. 

21 Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Georgia, Hong Kong, Macao, 
Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Russia, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Ukraine. 
22 Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia and The Gambia. 
23 Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Members 
of the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States, of the other part, ST/8372/2023/REV/1. 
24 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a 
Community Code on Visas (Visa Code). 
25 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on applying a generalised scheme of 
tariff preferences and repealing Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 
COM(2021) 579 final. 

5 

 
 
 
1.2. Operational context 

Over half a billion crossings of the external borders of the EU were recorded in 2023, reaching 
92% of pre-pandemic levels in 201926. Although the vast majority of third-country nationals 
arrive to the EU in an authorised manner27, the number of irregular arrivals remains high, with 
on average more than 300 000 illegal border crossings per year detected by Frontex between 
2022  and  2024.  Irregular  migration  continues  having  an  important  impact  on  the  return 
system. 

Effective implementation of returns is a challenge. In the years before the Covid-19 pandemic, 
the average return rate28 stood at almost 33%, pointing to an already insufficient effectiveness 
of the system. After the Covid-19 pandemic, the average return rate dropped to less than 18%. 
While  EU  efforts  have  been  successful  in  slightly  increasing  effective  returns  since  the 
pandemic, numbers have remained low, with the return rate standing at 19% in 2023 (Figure 
1)29. 

Figure 1: Third-country nationals to whom a return decision was issued in the EU and third-
country nationals returned from the EU after having been issued a return decision, including 
the return rate 2014–2023 (EU-27) 

Source:  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Migration  and  Home Affairs  based  on  Eurostat  data, 
extracted on 25/02/2025. 

26 UN World Tourism Organisation, International Tourism Dashboard 2024. 
27 For example, the average number of first permits issued over the last three years (2021-2023) has been over 3.5 
million. 
28 The return rate is understood as the number of third-country nationals returned to third countries as a percentage 
of the number of third-country nationals ordered to leave, calculated on the basis of data reported by Eurostat. 
29 Eurostat, Enforcement of immigration legislation. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/explore/all/popul?lang=en&subtheme=migr.migr_man.migr_eil&displ
ay=list&sort=category&extractionId=migr_eiord1, accessed 6 March 2025. 

6 

 
 
 
 
The number of effective returns has been on a steady increase since 2022. Based on Eurostat 
figures for the first three quarters of 2024, as well as operational data covering the rest of the 
year, this trend continues in 2024. 

Figure 2: Top five nationalities of third-country nationals ordered to leave, Q3 2022 – Q3 
2024 

Source: Eurostat, Returns of irregular migrants - quarterly statistics - Statistics Explained 

7 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3: Top five nationalities of third-country nationals returned to a third country 
following an order to leave, Q3 2022 – Q3 2024 

Source: Eurostat, Returns of irregular migrants - quarterly statistics - Statistics Explained 

The mismatch between the top nationalities ordered to leave and the top nationalities of third-
country nationals returned to a third country underlines the difficult operational context facing 
the Member States, which is characterised by an increasing number of third-country nationals 
ordered  to  leave  yet  remaining  in  the  EU.  The  EU  has  undertaken  significant  operational 
initiatives to foster the implementation of return decisions across the EU and to support national 
efforts to manage returns.  

Frontex’ expanded mandate on returns30 has resulted in important operational advancements. 
The Agency  supports  around  50%  of  returns  from  Member  States  and  provides  operational 
support in all phases of the return and reintegration process. In relation to identification and 
readmission, Frontex supports Member States with the organisation of identification missions, 
including joint missions to several Member States, and through deployment of return liaison 
officers in third countries. There are currently 9 return liaison officers deployed31 by Frontex, 
covering a total of 14 third countries. Frontex also offers support by deploying return specialists 
to Member States, including on return counselling. Between 1 December 2024 and 16 February 
2025,  there  were  82  deployments  (including  rotations  of  return  specialists  between  more 

30  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1896  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  November  2019  on  the 
European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624. 
31 Congo and Democratic Republic of Congo; Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea; Egypt; Ethiopia; Nigeria; Somalia and 
Kenya; The Gambia; Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan; Vietnam; Ghana (temporary gap). 

8 

 
 
 
 
locations) to 14 Member States32 covered by 76 return specialists (17 category 1, 36 category 
2 and 23 category 3). 

In relation to return operations, Frontex increased the number of returnees supported through 
commercial flights from 27 901 in 2023 to 44 628 in 2024, to 123 third countries of return. In 
2024, the majority were voluntary returns (Figure 4). In 2023 and 2024, Frontex supported the 
organisation of 288 charter flights with more than 11 000 returnees on board each year. Most 
return operations by air were monitored through the Frontex monitoring pool. The Agency also 
supports Member States in improving the efficiency of their national return and reintegration 
systems  through gap  analyses  of their digital return case management systems (21 Member 
States’ gap analysis had been finalised by 2024), as well as by setting up a knowledge exchange 
network on return and reintegration.  

Figure 4: Number of Frontex supported forced and voluntary returns 2019–2024 

Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs based on Frontex data 

Frontex and the Member States have shown significant operational results based on the  EU 
Strategy on Voluntary Return and Reintegration, published in April 202133. This strategy 
aims at increasing voluntary returns and creating a more coordinated approach among Member 
States, inter alia by enhancing operational assistance by Frontex, improving coordination with 
relevant partner countries, and enhancing return counselling services. The strategy furthermore 
emphasises  the  importance  of  enhancing  the  link  between  voluntary  and  forced  returns, 
including by strengthening information provision on their rights and obligations to returnees in 
the return process through counselling. As part of the strategy, Frontex has set up the European 

32  Cyprus,  Greece,  Denmark,  Poland,  Germany,  Italy,  Croatia,  Slovakia,  Bulgaria,  Portugal,  France,  Iceland, 
Belgium, Romania. 
33  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  The  EU  Strategy  on 
Voluntary Return and Reintegration, COM/2021/120 final. 

9 

 
 
 
 
Union Reintegration Programme34, which provides post-arrival and long-term reintegration 
support to both voluntary and forced returnees in over 35 non-EU countries (Figure 5). From 
2022 to the end of 2024, over 19 000 persons were supported (Figure 6)35. The programme 
actively  enhances  uptake  of  voluntary  returns  by  a  complementary  use  of  counselling  and 
incentives to reintegration (i.e. increase in the value of the assistance provided for voluntary 
returns),  while  Member  States  continue  to  provide  reintegration  support  under  national 
programmes36.  Member  States  and  Frontex  have  significantly  stepped  up  their  efforts  to 
provide return counselling to ensure that third-country nationals can obtain correct and timely 
information about the return process and Frontex has increased the efforts to provide training37. 
Under the  EU funded Return &  Reintegration Facility (RRF),  specific counselling  methods 
have been developed for vulnerable groups, i.e. persons in need of psycho-social support. In 
the first half of 2024, return specialists conducted 7178 return and reintegration counselling 
sessions, which resulted in 3866 declarations to return voluntarily38. 

Figure 5:  Third countries where Frontex has set up EU Reintegration Programmes 

Source: https://www.frontex.europa.eu/return-and-reintegration/reintegration-assistance/  

34 Support includes an immediate reception package (up to EUR 205 for forced returns) for housing/transport and 
cash  and  up  to  EUR  1 000  EUR  of  reintegration  services  per  returnee  (doubled  if  return  is  voluntary)  plus 
EUR 1 000 for each family member. 
35 Based on discussions with Frontex. 
36 
reintegration/reintegration-assistance, accessed 6 March 2025. 
37 Based on discussions with Frontex. 
38  Frontex,  Frontex  Risk Analysis  for  2024  –  First  Half,  2024. Available  at:  https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/wp-
content/uploads/fer-2024-1st-half.pdf, accessed 5 March 2025. 

Frontex,  Reintegration  Assistance.  Available 

https://www.frontex.europa.eu/return-and-

at: 

10 

 
 
 
 
Figure  6:  Number  of  third-country  nationals  supported  by  European  Union  Reintegration 
Programme 2022–2024 

Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs based on Frontex data 

As part of the Strategy on Voluntary Return and Reintegration, the Commission has worked to 
improve the efficiency and harmonisation of the reintegration processes through the continued 
development of the Reintegration Assistance Tool (RIAT), a digital tool that enables Member 
States to provide reintegration support in third countries to returnees through communication, 
monitoring  and  financial  and  administrative  handling  of  reintegration  programmes  and 
individual cases. The Frontex European Reintegration Program is handled in RIAT. In 2024, 
RIAT was used by 1332 return counsellors and project-coordinators in Member States, up from 
877 in 2023 (52% increase). 

Since the appointment of the EU Return Coordinator and the establishment of the High-Level 
Network  for  Returns  (HLN)  in  March  2022,  the  HLN  members  have  convened  to  discuss 
returns in 16 meetings39. The operational strategy for more effective returns40 includes the 
use of targeted return actions, listed in a Return Roadmap, to pool resources and implement 
jointly with the Member States and Frontex measures that will result in better coordination of 
internal efforts, such as planning of joint return operations by Frontex to priority third countries, 
workshops on incentives for promoting voluntary returns, comprehensive decisions (linking 
asylum to return), last-minute asylum applications. The EU Return Coordinator has supported 
the roll-out of the SIS return alerts, fostering coherence and consistency in its use. In-depth 
meetings  were  dedicated  to  the  return  of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals  posing  a 

39 8 in-person and 8 online. 
40  European  Commission,  Policy  Document,  Towards  an  operational  strategy  for  more  effective  returns, 
COM/2023/45 final. 

11 

 
 
 
 
security risk. A dedicated Staff Working Document was published by the Commission on 16 
December 202441.  

On 7 March 2023, the renewed Schengen Information System (SIS) entered into operation. 
On 1 January 2025, there were approximately 571 000 return alerts in the SIS. In 2024, there 
were  about  18  000  exit  and  10  000  entry  hits42  at  external  borders  and  49  000  hits  on  the 
territory of Member States (secondary movements). The SIS is useful to assess the extent of 
secondary movements and the degree of compliance with return decisions (voluntary return).  

With the renewed system, alerts on return entered into SIS must also indicate whether the return 
decision is issued in relation to a third-country national who poses a threat to public policy, 
to public security or to national security (“security flag”). The Return Directive provides for 
the possibility to apply stricter rules for third-country nationals posing a security risk (such as 
no period for voluntary departure and a longer entry ban) and the Return Border Procedure 
Regulation allows for detention of persons who pose a risk to public policy, public security or 
national security. The High-Level Network for Returns chaired by the EU Return Coordinator 
and  the  Return  Directive  Contact  Group  held  discussions  to  identify  concrete  solutions  to 
identify and speed up the return of third-country nationals posing security risks. Member States’ 
practices have also been examined as part of the Schengen thematic evaluation on return. 

The  introduction  of  return  alerts  in  the  SIS  has  created  an  opportunity  to  enhance  the 
recognition of return decisions issued by another Member State. In 2023 the Commission 
issued  a  Recommendation43  to  support  Member  States  in  using  this  tool  to  speed  up  and 
simplify returns. Dedicated discussions and exchange of good practices have taken place in the 
Return  Directive  Contact  Group  and  in  the  Working  Party  on  Integration,  Migration  and 
Expulsion  (IMEX) of the Council.  Despite these recent  initiatives,  although the majority of 
Member  States  have  transposed  the  Directive  on  mutual  recognition,  few  of  them  use  that 
possibility.  Member  States  identify  the  most  common  obstacle  as  the  lack  of  or  limited 
enforceability of the decision and the administrative burden. 

To improve the efficiency of readmission, the EU supports continuous exchange of knowledge 
and good practices between Member States, including via expert and practitioners’ meetings. 
Operational  solutions  for  the  effective  implementation  of  agreements  and  arrangements  are 
discussed in regular monitoring meetings with third countries. The European Return Liaison 
officers provide support directly in the third country for identification and return operations, 
and Frontex organises regularly  identification missions to  Member States. The Commission 
has supported the development of digital readmission case management systems (RCMSs) with 
6  third  countries  (Armenia,  Bangladesh,  Georgia,  Pakistan,  Sri  Lanka,  Ukraine).  RCMSs 
translate the readmission process into digital workflows, thereby increasing its efficiency and 
transparency.  Despite  these  efforts,  a  significant  gap  remains  between  return  orders  and 

41 European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document, On the return of illegally staying third-country 
nationals posing a security threat, SWD(2024) 287 final. 
42 The number of hits represents the number of persons detected on the territory of a Member State that did not 
issue the return decision for these persons. 
43  Commission  Recommendation  of  16  March  2023  on  mutual  recognition of  return decisions  and  expediting 
returns when implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C (2023) 1763 
final. 

12 

 
 
 
readmission requests. In 2023, for example, Member States issued 484 160 return decisions 
but submitted only 65 402 readmission requests to third countries. 

Despite these significant efforts and results at procedural and operational level, in particular in 
relation to voluntary return, the overall return rate remains around 20%. Although Member 
States have made improvements to their internal coordination, complexity and fragmentation 
at  legal,  policy  and  operational  levels,  remains  a  challenge  negatively  affecting  the 
effectiveness  of  returns.  Furthermore,  limited  cooperation  from  third-country  nationals  and 
third countries remains an area of concern. In relation to this, improvements are also required 
in  addressing  the  risk  of  absconding,  keeping  people  available  for  return  procedures  and 
incentivising compliance and voluntary return. These and other issues remain to be addressed 
to ensure that those ordered to leave are effectively returned. A further analysis and avenues 
for solutions are described below.  

1.3. Evidence base 

The  proposal  is  underpinned  by  a  solid  and  diverse  evidence  base,  to  ensure  that  it  is  both 
empirically grounded and responsive to stakeholder needs.  

Key sources include: 

(1) Schengen evaluations 

Periodic Schengen evaluations and the thematic Schengen evaluation on returns44 provide a 
detailed picture of the current return system. 27 evaluations were carried out between 2019 and 
2024,  covering  all  Member  States  and  Schengen  Associated  Countries  fully  applying  the 
Schengen acquis. The Commission put forward 254 recommendations to address the common 
identified challenges. These evaluations identify specific issues in national law transposing the 
Return Directive, providing an overview of the key challenges with the implementation of the 
current  Directive.  The  thematic  Schengen  evaluation  on  return  was  carried  out  in  2024  to 
identify  operational  solutions  that  enhance  the  effective  and  swift  return  of  third-country 
nationals with no right to stay. 

(2) Experts’ discussions 

Discussions in the Return Directive Contact Group chaired by the Commission and gathering 
Member State experts, the Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Border and Coast 
Guard Agency (‘Frontex’) have since the entry into force of the Return Directive analysed the 
interpretation of specific elements of the Directive. This has allowed the Commission to have 

44 Council Regulation (EU) 2022/922 of 9 June 2022 on the establishment and operation of an evaluation and 
monitoring  mechanism  to  verify  the  application  of  the  Schengen  acquis,  and  repealing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1053/2013 (OJ L 160, 15.6.2022, p. 1); European Commission, Proposal for a Council Implementing Decision on 
setting  out  recommendations  addressing  identified  common  areas  for  improvement  resulting  from  the  2024 
thematic Schengen evaluation ‘Bridging national gaps: towards an effective EU return system through common 
solutions and innovative practices, COM (2024) 589 final. 

13 

 
 
 
a  clear  overview  of  the  most  difficult  elements  when  it  comes  to  the  interpretation  and 
application of the Return Directive45.  

In  the  Council,  under  the  steer  of  several  Presidencies,  discussions  on  returns  have  been 
regularly on the agenda of respective working groups46. Exchanges on the future of the return 
policy and on the views of Member States on the upcoming legislation were particularly intense 
in 2024 and 2025. 

The  High-Level  Network  for  Returns  chaired  by  the  EU  Return  Coordinator  has  discussed 
issues of practical nature relevant for the new return legal framework.  

Targeted discussions with the European Migration Forum and the Expert Group on the views 
of  migrants  in  November  2024  and  January  2025  have  been  instrumental  in  shaping  the 
proposal, notably on safeguards in the return process. The Readmission Expert Group analyses 
of the readmission process focused on the challenges in the identification process, issuance of 
travel documents, organisation of return operations, use of digital tools, and the EU approach 
towards specific third countries. The discussions in this context evidence a number of common 
challenges, and a fragmented approach to the readmission process. Dedicated Frontex working 
groups have raised operational challenges linked to both the return and readmission processes.  

(3) Study on gaps and needs of EU law in the area of return 

The proposal is informed by the consultations carried out within a dedicated study on “Gaps 
and  needs  of  EU  law  in  the  area  of  return”,  commissioned  by  the  European  Commission 
Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs. The study, led by ICF, in collaboration 
with the Migration Policy Institute (MPI Europe), the European Policy Centre (EPC), and the 
Odysseus  Academic  Network  for  Legal  Studies  on  Immigration  and  Asylum  in  Europe 
(Odysseus  Network),  has  provided  high  quality  analysis  of  possible  options  for  the  new 
legislative  framework  on  return,  based  on  targeted  consultations  with  stakeholders  through 
surveys, workshops and interviews. While the study will only be concluded later in 2025, the 
legislative proposal is informed by the consultation process carried out within the study.  

(4) European Parliament studies and evaluations 

The  substitute  Impact Assessment  of  the  recast  Return  Directive  proposal47  and  the  Return 
Directive  implementation  report48,  both  done  by  the  European  Parliament  Research  Centre, 
have fed this analysis and the preparations of the new legislative proposal. 

45 These discussions have been taking place two to three times a year since 2009. When the Commission presented 
the proposal to recast the Return Directive in 2018, meetings were suspended for a period but resumed in 2022, 
and six meetings have taken place since. 
46  For  example,  the  Council  Working  Group  on  Immigration,  Migration  and  Expulsion  has  held  dedicated 
discussions more than 50 times since the adoption of the current directive. 
47  European  Parliamentary  Research  Service,  The  proposed  Return  Directive  (recast),  Substitute  Impact 
Assessment, 
at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/631727/EPRS_STU(2019)631727_EN.pdf. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/631727/EPRS_STU(2019)631727_EN.pdf 
48  European  Parliamentary  Research  Service,  The  Return  Directive  2008/115/EC,  European  Implementation 
Assessment, 
at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/642840/EPRS_STU(2020)642840_EN.pdf. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/642840/EPRS_STU(2020)642840_EN.pdf 

Available 

Available 

February 

Study, 

Study, 

EPRS 

EPRS 

2020. 

2019. 

June 

14 

 
 
 
(5) Stakeholder consultation 

The legislative proposal has been informed by consultations with a broad range of stakeholders, 
including Member States, European institutions, international organisations, non-governmental 
organisations (NGOs), civil society, research entities, and third countries. The consultations 
occurred at political, strategic, and technical level, to ensure that the realities and needs of all 
relevant actors would be considered. Stakeholders have shared with the Commission relevant 
resources and targeted input, listed in Annex I.  

(6) EMN-REG resources 

The Commission maintains regular consultations with Member States, Frontex, international 
organisations  and  NGOs  through  the  European  Migration  Network  Return  Expert  Group 
(EMN-REG)49. The ongoing work of EMN-REG has provided a valuable practical evidence 
base  through  50  meetings  (18  plenary,  32  thematic),  23  ad-hoc  queries  and  18  published 
informs / studies in the 2019-2024 period. These exchanges at practitioners’ level ensure that 
the  legislative  proposal  is  grounded  in  real-world  experience  and  that  procedural  and 
operational needs of Member States are addressed. Annex II contains a list of EMN meetings, 
informs and studies which served as background to inform the elaboration of the proposal.  

(7) EU funded research  

The proposal has been informed by EU-funded (ongoing) research projects in the field of return 
and irregular migration, in particular: “Measuring Irregular Migration (MIrreM)” on irregular 
migration in general and “De-centring the Study of Migrant Returns and Readmission Policies 
in Europe and Beyond (GAPS)”, “Motivations, experiences and consequences of returns and 
readmissions policy: revealing and developing effective alternatives (MORE)” and “Finding 
Agreement in Return (FAIR)” on return, reintegration and readmission. These research projects 
bringing  together  academia,  civil  society,  governments  and  international  organisations  have 
looked  into,  among  others,  barriers/enablers  to  international  cooperation  on  return, 
motivations, experiences and consequences of return and readmission policy and human rights 
aspects in voluntary and forced return50.  

2. Definition of problems and challenges 

At present, only around 20% of third-country nationals ordered to leave the territory of 
the  Member  States  return.  Whilst  acknowledging  the  limitations  of  the  return  rate  as  a 
measure of effectiveness, this rate remains too low. Persons ordered to leave can mislead the 
authorities,  moving  on  to  other  Member  States  as  well  as  through  purposely  delaying  and 
frustrating return procedures. Third-country nationals remaining in the Union despite a return 
decision who pose a threat to public security or national security require particular attention. 
Overall, the current system is not working well enough, which has an overall  impact on the 

49  European  Commission,  Expert  Groups  –  Networking  on  legal  migration,  irregular  migration  and  return. 
Available at: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/european-migration-network-emn/expert-groups_en.  
50 Irregular Migration Platform. Available at: https://irregularmigration.eu/, accessed 20 February 2025; Return 
Migration  Platform.  Available  at:  https://www.returnmigration.eu/about,  accessed  20  February  2025;  MORE 
Project Horizon. Available at: https://www.moreproject-horizon.eu/, accessed 20 February 2025; FAIR-Return. 
Available at: https://fair-return.org/, accessed 20 February 2025. 

15 

 
 
 
efficiency of the migration management in the Union. This can undermine the implementation 
of  the  Pact,  which  foresees  an  efficient  EU  return  system  for  the  comprehensive  migration 
management  system  to  work.  This  erosion  can  lead  to  a  loss  of  trust  in  the  international 
protection framework, as the low number of effective returns questions the effectiveness and 
fairness of current asylum and migration policies. 

Several interconnected problems undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of current return 
and readmission procedures:  

(1) Complexity and fragmentation of the return process 

Despite the significant efforts to clarify the current rules and support better and more effective 
implementation,  including  with  guidance51,  discussions  and  exchanges  of  best  practices  in 
expert groups52, the complexity of the return process remains a challenge, as evidenced by the 
stakeholders  during  the  consultations  process.  A  high  number  of  actors,  authorities  and 
stakeholders  are  involved. The  absence  of  strategic  planning  prevents  Member  States  from 
comprehensively streamlining national procedures, working on priorities and making the best 
use of the (limited) available resources53. 

Member  States  report,  in  that  context,  complex  national  legal  frameworks  and  protracted 
administrative proceedings54. The complexity is also linked to the need to take into account 
extensive  jurisprudence  when  applying  the  return  rules.  Sixty-six  judgments  on  the  Return 
Directive have been rendered by the European Court of Justice since its entry into force. 

This is compounded by the fact that in many Member States voluntary and forced return are 
dealt with by different authorities, and communication, information-sharing and coordination 
is  not  always  optimal  and  streamlined55.  This  enhances  the  possibilities  for  third-country 
nationals to frustrate return procedures through administrative and legal proceedings. 

Schengen evaluations in the field of return have indicated that Member States have persistent 
deficiencies  when  it  comes  to  the  effective  enforcement  of  return  decisions.  Divergences 
between Member States’ practices include how and when return-related decisions are issued to 
illegally staying third-country nationals and a lack of common format and content of the return-
related decisions, with some Member States providing details in fact and in law, while others 

51  Commission  Recommendation  (EU)  2017/2338  of  16  November  2017  establishing  a  common  ‘Return 
Handbook’  to  be  used  by  Member  States'  competent  authorities  when  carrying  out  return-related  tasks, 
C/2017/6505; Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/432 of 7 March 2017 on making returns more effective 
when  implementing  Directive  2008/115/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  C/2017/1600; 
Commission Recommendation of 16 March 2023 on mutual recognition of return decisions and expediting returns 
when implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C/2023/1763. 
52 Council Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion (IMEX); Contact Group - Return Directive 
(E02232). 
53 European Commission, Schengen thematic evaluation report - Bridging national gaps: towards an effective EU 
return  system.  Available  at:  https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/schengen-thematic-evaluation-report-bridging-
national-gaps-towards-effective-eu-return-system_en.  
54 European Commission, Schengen thematic evaluation report - Bridging national gaps: towards an effective EU 
return  system.  Available  at:  https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/schengen-thematic-evaluation-report-bridging-
national-gaps-towards-effective-eu-return-system_en. 

55 About half of the Member States have separate authorities dealing with voluntary and forced return. 

16 

 
 
 
implementing  a  minimalistic  approach  which,  among  others,  creates  divergences  as  to  how 
non-refoulement is assessed. 

The lack of effective communication between the relevant authorities further complicates the 
functioning of the system, both inside each Member State and between Member States in case 
of  secondary  movements. A  significant  complication  also  relates  to  the  limited  use  of  case 
management  systems  in  Member  States  as  well  as  ineffective  and  incoherent  use  of  (EU) 
databases, meaning that one person may have multiple digital files. This lack of communication 
and coordination can hamper the seamless and effective follow-up between the asylum, return 
and readmission processes and leads to inefficiency and ineffectiveness of return procedures. 
The current system lacks coherence and alignment with the developments that have occurred 
since the adoption of the Return Directive in 2008, notably with the legal acts composing the 
Pact which were adopted in 2024. Most legal acts of the Pact are regulations, leading to more 
streamlining and harmonisation of Member States’ procedures. In general, the Pact legislation 
reinforces the obligations of third-country nationals to cooperate with the authorities, includes 
provisions on how to handle third-country nationals posing a security risk as well as how to 
handle minors in the migration process. These are points on which alignment across the various 
migration processes are useful for a more streamlined and efficient approach.  

The complexity of the process makes it hard for some Member States to have recourse to the 
recognition and enforcement of return decisions issued by other Member States. In many cases, 
the procedures that the third-country national was subject to in the issuing Member State are 
considered  too  materially  different  from  those  of  the  Member  State  that  would  potentially 
recognise  the  decision,  and  there  is  lack  of  clarity  on  how  to  efficiently  enforce  a  decision 
issued by another Member State. This means that in practice many Member States start the 
return procedure from scratch even if the third-country national had already been issued a return 
decision by another Member State. This is not efficient and opens the possibility to delay the 
process by moving between Member States and can foster secondary movements.  

(2) Insufficient cooperation of third-country nationals 

An important element hindering effective returns is the lack of cooperation from third-country 
nationals. Returning an uncooperative third-country national, who for example does not show 
up for the different phases of the return procedure, does not provide all the information and 
documents  necessary  to  facilitate  the  confirmation  of  nationality  and  the  issuance  of  travel 
documents  and  obstructs  the  return  operation,  is  extremely  challenging.  The  EU  return 
legislation currently does not contain any obligation for third-country nationals to cooperate in 
the  return  procedure;  such  an  obligation  is  however  included  in  relation  to  applicants  for 
international  protection  in the asylum legislation adopted with  the Pact56.  Provisions on the 
obligation  to  cooperate  were  included  in  the  Commission  proposal  for  the  recast  Return 
Directive. Some Member States have provided for the obligation to cooperate in their national 
legislation57. Hence, third-country nationals can be subject to different obligations and eligible 

56  See,  e.g.,  Article  9  of  the  Asylum  Procedure  Regulation,  as  well  as  similar  provisions  in  the  Qualification 
Regulation. 
57 The stakeholder consultations carried out in the context of the study on gaps and needs of EU law in the area of 
return showed that more than 10 Member States have an obligation to cooperate at national level.  

17 

 
 
 
for different incentives based on the Member State issuing the return decision. This can lead to 
a distortive effect and cause secondary movements. 

(3) Inability to ensure the availability of illegally staying third-country nationals 

and absconding 

Third-country nationals illegally present in the EU may not have been detected following an 
irregular border crossing or may abscond after receiving a return decision58. Reliable data on 
absconding at EU level is not available. Some Member States estimate it at around 30%59. An 
estimated 261 700 secondary movements were detected in the EU in 2024, based on Eurodac 
foreign hits (523 367), which is a 11% decrease compared to 2023 (584 936 Eurodac foreign 
hits,  corresponding  to  an  estimated  292  500  secondary  movements)  and  a  18%  increase 
compared  to  2022  (443  116  Eurodac  foreign  hits,  corresponding  to  an  estimated  221  600 
secondary movements)60. The Schengen Information System, as well as the Entry-Exit System 
and revised Eurodac system, will in time provide more comprehensive data.  

Absconding, including by moving to another Member State, represents a significant challenge 
in the framework of return, as it complicates the management of cases and creates constraints 
in the allocation of resources. Absconding also leads to an increased administrative workload, 
as the Member State authorities need to spend time to locate the person to understand if the 
person is still in their Member State, to uncertainties and challenges in planning, identification 
and return operations, with significant material and organisational costs, and can raise security 
risks61. A proper assessment of the risk of absconding makes it possible to identify measures 
best suited to respond to the risk and prevent it, leading to a follow-up of return decisions.  

Schengen evaluations show that the elements taken into account by the national authorities for 
assessing the risk of absconding vary, leading to an inconsistent approach to detention.  It is 
important that return alerts in the Schengen Information System are used in full, as this will 
help assessing if a person is likely to abscond again, for example by verifying if the person 
already  absconded  in  another  Member  State.  However,  currently  there  are  still  gaps  in  the 
completeness and timeliness of the data.  

Detention is a necessary tool to facilitate returns. When there is a risk of absconding, Member 
States may be required to detain migrants during the full length of sometimes protracted return 
and readmission procedures. Detention should be proportionate, imposed when necessary, and 
take into account the time necessary to prepare the return, in respect of fundamental  rights. 
Through  operational  exchanges,  the  Commission  understands  that  the  current  maximum 
duration of detention as implemented in national frameworks is not always sufficient in practice 
for  the  necessary  procedures  to  be  carried  out,  particularly  for  the  most  complex  cases. 

58 European Commission, EMN Study on Responses to Long-Term Irregularly Staying Migrants: Practices and 
Challenges  in  EU  Member  States  and  Norway,  2020.  Available  at:  https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/whats-
new/publications/emn-study-provides-overview-policies-and-practices-member-states-and-norway-regarding-
third-country_en.  
59 Evidence-based approach to underpin the legislative initiatives under the Pact on Migration and Asylum. 
60 Source: eu-LISA. 
61 Frontex, Good Practices on Alternatives to Detention in Return Procedures (European Border and Coast Guard 
Agency,  2021);  EMN,  The  Effectiveness  of  Return 
in  EU  Member  States,  2018.  Available  at: 
https://emn.ie/publications/the-effectiveness-of-return-in-eu-member-states-emn-synthesis-report/. 

18 

 
 
 
Moreover,  there  is  an  important  challenge  with  detention  capacity  in  many  Member  States 
putting a strain on the system. The duration of procedures for identification and issuance of 
travel  documents  can  be  lengthy,  even  when  shorter  timeframes  are  set  in  readmission 
instruments,  as  timeframes  are  often  not  respected  by  the  third  countries’  authorities. 
Furthermore, return procedures can also take substantial time, including due to administrative 
and judicial appeals62, procedural steps, non-cooperation by the third-country national or the 
third country.63  

The Commission, the Agencies, the European Parliament and the Member States have been 
working  together  with  civil  society  to  increase  the  effectiveness,  availability  and  use  of 
alternatives to detention. The work has been carried out with a view to ensuring the overall 
efficiency of the Member States’ return systems where administrative immigration detention is 
applied  when  it  proves  necessary  and  proportionate  and  in  full  respect  of  returnees’ 
fundamental rights.  

(4) Limited uptake of voluntary return and effectiveness of forced return 

While there have been some improvements in the last years, the number of voluntary returns 
could  be  increased.  Member  States  report  that  the  uptake  of Assisted Voluntary  Return  and 
Reintegration  programmes  remains  limited  and  that  returnees  who  apply  may  also  abscond 
before returning64. A significant number of Member States (15) consider the risk of absconding 
one of the main challenges linked to voluntary return. The uptake of voluntary returns depends 
on many factors, including the credibility of the removal option, the available incentives and 
the consequences in case of non-cooperation. In some cases, third-country nationals who do 
not cooperate on their voluntary return are not swiftly channelled to a forced return trajectory 
and abscond. In many Member States, the opportunity to return voluntarily within the 30-day 
period is granted to most returnees; however, instead of leaving, the Commission understands 
from  operational  exchanges  with  national  authorities  that  this  in  some  cases  results  in 
absconding  and difficulties in  following up with  forced return when voluntary return is  not 
respected. The lack of clearly defined rules on when a person should be subject to forced return 
hampers the overall effectiveness of the system.  One of the reasons behind this is the fact that 
in some Member States authorities dealing with voluntary and forced return are separate, and 
communication is not always streamlined. Lack of clear and consistent follow-up with forced 
return reduces incentives of third-country nationals to cooperate and return voluntarily, as there 
is no clear prospect of forced return. The existence of these loopholes facilitates absconding 
and hampers returns. 

(5) Return of persons posing a security risk 

Managing and prioritising the return of persons posing a security risk is an issue commonly 
flagged  by  Member  States,  particularly  in  view  of  the  public  debate  following  cases  where 
third-country nationals with a return decision conducted acts of terrorism, touching on internal 

62 EMN 2017, the effectiveness of return in EU Member States. 
63Workshop on Comprehensive Decisions and Last-minute Asylum applications, 22 October 2024. 
64 Expert discussions in the Council Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion (IMEX). 

19 

 
 
 
security  considerations65.  Sharing  information  and  carrying  out  security  checks  related  to 
security  risks  is  essential  and  can  be  implemented  by  making  full  use  of  existing  tools, 
including the SIS return alerts and other relevant databases. However, despite the creation of 
the  security  flag  feature  in  SIS,  the  quality  of  the  statistical  picture  is  still  limited.  The 
information needed for identifying and assessing a  potential security risk can be difficult to 
obtain, due to the number of authorities involved, often including security services, police and 
migration authorities, having access to different levels of information66.  

The management of those return cases  can be improved. The absence of a specific separate 
ground  for  detention  in  cases  where  a  person  poses  a  security  risk  further  complicates  the 
handling of such cases.  Meanwhile, the accelerated implementation  of  return procedures of 
persons  posing  a  security  risk  relies  on  operational  measures  internally  and  readmission 
cooperation externally. 

(6) Insufficient effectiveness of the readmission process 

While readmitting own nationals is an obligation under international law,  some countries of 
origin do not cooperate sufficiently in the identification of third-country nationals, the issuance 
of travel documents, and the organisation of return operations. This obstructs the readmission 
process and the effectiveness of returns, in particular for irregular migrants without valid travel 
documents67. 

The readmission process is neither defined nor regulated in the current Return Directive, and 
Member States implement different approaches. Operational data show limited follow up by 
Member States of enforceable return decisions, including with the submission of readmission 
requests. The  reason behind  this discrepancy is  linked to  both  internal  and external  factors, 
such as administrative capacities to follow up on return decisions or the level of cooperation 
and reactivity of the country of origin. While it is understood that the number of readmission 
requests cannot equal the number of return  decisions or the number of returns, for example 
because  voluntary  returns  often  do  not  require  a  readmission  request,  the  gap  remains 
important, pointing, among others, to a lack of systematic follow up of the procedural steps. 

Insufficient coordination in engagement with third countries can lead to a fragmented approach 
and  undermine  the  coherence  and  effectiveness  of  the  Union’s  external  action68  and  the 
effectiveness of leverages.  

Another specific issue is the lack of clarity and legal uncertainties in the engagement with non-
recognised third-country entities for the purpose of identification and return and readmission.  

65 Commission Staff Working Document on the Return of Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals Posing a 
Security Threat, SWD(2024) 287 final. 
66 Commission Staff Working Document on the Return of Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals Posing a 
Security Threat, SWD(2024) 287 final. 
67 European Court of Auditors, Special Report 17/2021: EU readmission cooperation with third countries: relevant 
actions 
at: 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR21_17/SR_Readmission-cooperation_EN.pdf, para 74. 
68 European Court of Auditors, Special Report 17/2021: EU readmission cooperation with third countries: relevant 
actions 
at: 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR21_17/SR_Readmission-cooperation_EN.pdf, para 125. 

Available 

Available 

yielded 

yielded 

results. 

results. 

limited 

limited 

20 

 
 
 
The uncertainties related to sharing the necessary data between Member States, as well as the 
transfer  of  such  data  to  third  countries  for  the  purpose  of  readmission,  lead  to  inconsistent 
approaches  between  Member  States  and  towards  third  countries.  In  certain  cases,  these 
inconsistencies can lead to ineffective procedures and can prevent the completion of the return 
and  readmission  process69. This  situation  is  particularly  problematic  for  data  relating  to  the 
confirmation  of  nationality  of  third-country  nationals,  which  is  necessary  to  complete  the 
readmission process.  

3. Objectives of an effective EU return policy 

An effective EU return policy aims to contribute to the increase of the overall number of returns 
and,  ultimately,  to  a  credible  migration  management  system.  To  achieve  that  result,  the 
following specific objectives are sought: 

(1) Simplify the return process and increase its effectiveness 

Rules, definitions and procedures in relation to  forced and voluntary return should be made 
clearer,  less  burdensome  and  more  streamlined.  Exchange  of  information  and  cooperation 
between competent authorities should be strengthened through a clear framework. Recognition 
of return decisions issued by other Member States should be further strengthened, to reduce 
administrative steps, avoid duplication and send a firm signal to third-country nationals that 
there is no way to avoid the enforcement of return by going to another Member State. There is 
a need to ensure that information on the return decision exchanged by Member States include 
the key elements to allow for recognition and enforcement. More clarity is needed on how to 
assess the risk of absconding, including in relation to third-country nationals who moved to 
another  Member  State  without  authorisation,  as  well  as  on  conditions  for  detention  and 
alternatives  to  it. Alignment  with  some  of  the  key  novelties  of  the  Pact  would  also  reduce 
administrative complexity and streamline the process. Establishing common rules, including 
on  procedural  rights  for  the  individuals  concerned,  is  key  for  building  mutual  trust  among 
Member States, which is a necessary element for consistent and efficient action across the EU, 
and for the recognition and enforcement of return decisions.  

(2) Strengthen the European dimension of return 

The  complexity  and  fragmentation  of  existing  approaches  within  the  EU  system  could  be 
overcome  also  through  a  system  of  common  rules,  structures  and  solutions  that  have  a 
European dimension. It is key that irregular migrants know that moving without authorisation 
to another Member State will not be a solution to remain in the EU and exploit possible gaps, 
because they will be subject to the same rules and procedures across the EU. 

At the same time, the necessary degree of flexibility should be ensured, taking into account 
Member States’ constitutional, legal, procedural and institutional structures, so that the return 
legal framework can be successfully and efficiently implemented.  

Therefore, there is a need to: 

69 As confirmed by the information collected in preparation of joint committees of readmission agreements and 
arrangements as well as in relevant Council Working Groups and Commission Expert Groups. 

21 

 
 
 
a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

e) 

Reduce  opportunities  for  the  returnee  to  circumvent  return  rules  due  to  the 
inefficient interaction between different  national  authorities or by absconding  to 
another  Member  State.  Recognition  and  enforcement  of  return  decisions  among 
Member States as well as measures against absconding would play an important 
role; 

Harness efficiencies, allowing for the pooling of resources and expertise and for 
seamless cooperation among Member States. It would allow effective support from 
Frontex, building on the work done by the Agency for instance on flight booking 
and reintegration through the EU Reintegration Programme;  

Ensure alignment of the return rules with the Pact, in particular with the asylum 
legislation and the Return Border Procedure Regulation; 

Ensure that all Member States allocate the necessary resources and capacities to 
return,  including  for  the  purpose  of  contingency  planning  and  ensuring  well-
prepared systems; 

Increase  the  EU  credibility  towards  third  countries,  through  putting  in  place 
coherent and predictable readmission procedures as an integral part of the return 
process and with increased coordination in external action. 

(3) Incentivise cooperation by the third-country national 

The cooperation of third-country nationals should be strengthened to get a more efficient and 
swifter  return  process,  in  particular  by  enabling  the  establishment  and  verification  of 
nationality,  obtaining  travel  documents  and  ensuring  that  the  returnee  is  available  for  the 
successful  enforcement  of  the  return  decision.  The  obligation  to  cooperate  should  be 
proportionate  and  in  line  with  fundamental  rights.  It  should  be  accompanied  by  clear 
information on the rights and obligations of third-country national.    

The possibility to carry out returns to countries other than the country of origin or transit that 
accept  the returnee  could  work  as  a deterrent  for irregular migration  and as  an incentive to 
cooperate. It would be important to ensure that any solutions are fully in line with EU’s overall 
approach to the external dimension of migration, which is based on comprehensive, mutually 
beneficial partnerships with third countries and promoting the shared goal of migration policy 
that is fair and firm.  

(4) Ensure the availability of the third-country national subject to return and prevent 

absconding and secondary movements 

Ensuring the availability of individuals subject to a return decision is a key component of the 
effectiveness of a system that prevents and limits absconding. Detention or, where appropriate, 
alternatives to detention, should be implemented where there is a risk of absconding. This is 
also  important  for  identification  of  returnees,  cases  of  non-cooperation  or  people  posing  a 
security  risk.  An  integrated  and  coherent  system  to  manage  absconding  should  also  take 
account of new solutions, including digital ones. 

(5) Incentivise voluntary return for returnees who cooperate and make forced return a 

credible option 

22 

 
 
Voluntary return is key for the efficiency of the return process as the most cost-effective and 
easier  way  to  return  third-country  nationals.  A  prerequisite  and  an  effective  incentive  to 
enhance the uptake of voluntary return is a credible forced return option, and more clarity on 
the interplay between  the two should be sought. To this  end,  measures  are needed to  better 
manage the situation of third-country nationals who do not cooperate, who abscond to another 
Member State, who pose a security risk or who have not voluntarily returned before the date 
given to them. Member States should have procedures and capacity to enforce return decisions 
and  to  speedily  support  those  who  choose  to  return  voluntarily,  including  by  enhancing 
cooperation between the different authorities.  

(6) Facilitate the return of persons posing a security risk 

The return of persons posing a security risk is an EU priority. Exchange of information between 
relevant authorities should be streamlined and all relevant tools should be used to identify such 
persons  and  ensure  their  swift  and  effective  return.  Strengthened  rules  are  necessary,  in 
particular on detention, entry bans and the use of forced returns, while ensuring the respect of 
the principle of non-refoulement.   

(7) Uphold the respect of fundamental rights 

The respect of fundamental rights should remain a key requirement in the return process, in 
particular of the rights recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 
and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 
The jurisprudence in relation to the implementation of the Charter should be taken into account. 
In  addition,  compliance  should  be  ensured  with  relevant  obligations  stemming  from 
international law, in particular the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, the United 
Nations Convention against Torture and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the 
Child. 

(8) Increase the effectiveness of the readmission procedure 

The readmission procedure is an integral part of the return process – there is no return without 
a successful readmission procedure. This success depends on both internal and external factors. 
On the internal side, much can be done in terms of ensuring a coherent approach towards third 
countries,  building  on  the  experience  of  implementing  the  existing  EU  readmission 
instruments.  This  would  complement  the  external  efforts,  including  the  conclusion  of  new 
readmission  instruments  and  the  use  of  positive  and  negative  leverages.  Coordination  and 
transparency in the engagement with third countries should be strengthened to maximise results 
to the benefit of all Member States. 

4. Ways forward considered 

With a view to addressing the challenges and meeting the objectives set out above, three ways 
forward have been considered.  

•  Alternative  A:  Bringing  improvements  while  working  within  the  current 
framework.  This  involves  better  implementation  of  the  current  legal  framework  by 
making use of the available non-legislative tools.  

23 

 
 
•  Alternative  B:  New  legal  framework  (directive  or  regulation)  introducing  new 
tools, streamlined rules and simplification to make return rules more efficient and 
put  in  place  an  overall  more  harmonised  common  system  for  returns.  This 
alternative increases the consistency and clarity of common EU rules and includes key 
novelties,  while  maintaining  a  certain  degree  of  flexibility  to  respond  to  national 
realities. 

•  Alternative C: New legal framework (regulation) setting out streamlined and fully 
harmonised rules. This alternative provides for a fully harmonised common EU return 
system.  

4.1. Alternative A: Bringing improvements while working within the current framework 

Under this alternative, the current legal framework, i.e. the Return Directive of 2008, would be 
maintained. The Commission would continue working with Member States on implementing 
the Commission’s Recommendations of 2017 and 202370, which contain detailed guidance on 
how Member States can use the flexibilities in the current Return Directive to speed up return 
as well as to recognise and enforce return decisions issued by another Member State. 

The innovations brought by the Pact, such as the closer link between asylum and return and the 
return  border  procedure,  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  system.  On  the  more  novel 
aspects  of  the  Pact  not  covered  by  the  Return  Directive,  such  as  the  obligation  of,  and  the 
incentives for the returnee to cooperate, the Commission would prepare a new recommendation 
to  guide Member States  on how  to  implement  it  or amend national  law. The Guidelines on 
Alternatives to  Detention drafted by the EU Agency for Asylum and the Good Practices on 
Alternatives to Detention in return procedures prepared by Frontex would help Member States 
to  strengthen  the  prevention  of  absconding71.  The  Commission  would  build  on  the  efforts 
already made in the context of the implementation of the EU Strategy on Voluntary Return and 
Reintegration.  

To achieve a more common approach in cooperation among Member States towards the same 
objectives and ensure a unified approach vis-a-vis third countries, the Commission could issue 
a  communication  or  a  strategy  setting  out  its  vision  on  how  to  work  better  jointly.  This 
communication or strategy could task actors such as Frontex or the EU Return Coordinator to 
work on specific topics or actions for a more unified and integrated approach.  

The work of the EU Return Coordinator would continue on the basis of the operational strategy, 
to  be  updated,  as  needed,  and  taking  into  account  the  outcome  of  the  already  implemented 
actions. 

70  Commission  Recommendation  (EU)  2017/432  of  7  March  2017  on  making  returns  more  effective  when 
implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C/2017/1600; Commission 
Recommendation  of  16  March  2023  on  mutual  recognition  of  return  decisions  and  expediting  returns  when 
implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C/2023/1763. 
71 European Union Agency for Asylum, Guidelines on Alternatives to Detention, December 2024 and Frontex, 
Good Practices on Alternatives to Detention in return procedures, January 2025. 

24 

 
 
 
Building on the document issued in December 202472, the Commission would take forward 
work  on  the  return  of  third-country  nationals  posing  a  security  risk,  notably  by  developing 
guidance and supporting the sharing of best practices and cooperation among Member States. 

Building on the evaluation of the renewed SIS, the Commission could further guide and support 
the use of return alerts in SIS through updating the SIS II User Manual. This would complement 
the  endeavours  to  enhance  the  use  of  mutual  recognition,  as  set  out  in  the  Commission 
Recommendation of 16 March 2023 on the mutual recognition of return decisions73.  

Guidance  would  also  be  provided  to  foster  a  more  coherent  approach  to  the  readmission 
procedure.  Data  collection  and  data  exchange  in  relation  to  return  and  readmission  would 
continue within the current set-up.  

Solutions to manage irregular migration would be further explored within the existing legal 
framework, taking into account the existing definition of the country of return, allowing for 
return to the country of origin or transit, or to another country where the person voluntarily 
agrees to return. 

To  overcome  the  issues  linked  to  insufficient  cooperation  of  third  countries,  the  EU  and 
Member States would have recourse to the tools available in the current framework, such as 
Article 25a of the Visa Code. 

The respect of fundamental rights would continue to be guaranteed respected in line with the 
provisions of the Return Directive.  

4.2. Alternative B: New legal framework (directive or regulation) introducing new tools, 
streamlined rules and simplification to make return rules more efficient and put in place 
an overall more harmonised common system for returns 

Under this alternative, a new legal instrument would be proposed by the Commission, putting 
in place an overall more harmonised common system. While the legislative proposal would 
aim to create common and streamlined rules for effectively managing returns, it would leave 
some flexibility to the Member States, where appropriate, for the new framework to be adapted 
to national specificities. 

Such new instrument  would include a number of innovations  and would further clarify and 
expand some of the current rules, to address the challenges and attain the identified objectives. 
It would respond to the political calls for a new approach to manage returns by setting up a 
coherent and streamlined system, built solidly on the basis of the experiences gained in the 
implementation of the current rules and on the evidence identified in the evidence base section 
of this document, and would strengthen the European dimension.  

This  alternative  would  allow  introducing  in  the  legal  framework  key  novelties  tested  or 
discussed in  recent  years, such as  the obligation to  cooperate,  incentives,  counselling  and a 

72 Commission Staff Working Document on the Return of Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals Posing a 
Security Threat, SWD (2024) 287 final. 
73  Commission  Recommendation  of  16  March  2023  on  mutual  recognition of  return decisions  and  expediting 
returns when implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C (2023) 1763 
final. 

25 

 
 
 
permissive approach to returns to third countries other than the country of origin or transit. It 
would expand and clarify issues not sufficiently addressed in the current Directive, such as the 
assessment of the risk of absconding and the rules on detention.  

To address problems to which the current Directive’s responses are not entirely satisfactory, 
this alternative would further strengthen  forced return and make it a credible  option  so that 
voluntary return would be incentivised. Specific rules would also bring a tailored solution to 
swiftly return third-country nationals with no right to stay posing a security risk.  

Aiming at simplification, the new instrument would clarify the return rules, reducing the need 
for  interpretation  and  the  divergence  in  approaches.  It  would  firmly  embed  readmission 
procedures  as  part  of  the  return  process,  as  well  as  the  possibility  for  a  standard  form  for 
readmission applications to be used, where possible.  

Recognition of return decisions issued by other Member States would become mandatory, to 
reinforce the European dimension of return. However, a two-step approach could be envisaged 
where recognition would remain optional for a time while the necessary legal and technical 
arrangements for an optimal functioning of the system are put in place. Such two-step approach 
would also allow for the Regulation 2024/1351 on Asylum and Migration Management to start 
being  applied,  ensuring the best  condition  to  implement  mandatory  recognition  as part of a 
comprehensive migration management system.  

The new instrument would also be able to address the increased need for communication and 
exchange  of  information  between  authorities  within  and  across  the  Member  States  and  the 
transfer of data to third countries, including by setting effective processes and providing for a 
clear legal basis, where needed. It would complete the alignment of the EU return rules with 
the Pact, ensuring a coherent and more effective approach. 

The new instrument would uphold the respect of fundamental rights of returnees, providing 
clear procedural safeguards and by aligning the provisions on the protection of minors with the 
ones established by the Pact. It would also make it possible to introduce a right to information 
and legal assistance during judicial proceedings.  

4.3. Alternative  C:  New legal framework (regulation) setting out streamlined and fully 
harmonised rules 

Under this alternative, a new legal instrument, which would be a regulation, would harmonise 
in detail all aspects of the return process, providing for a fully coherent and unified system. 

The new regulation would define all the procedural steps of the return process, detailed rules 
on the interplay between forced and voluntary return, and legislate all aspects and options of 
key concepts such as the obligation to cooperate, the consequences in case of non-cooperation 
as  well  as  the  relevant  incentives  to  cooperate,  which  would  be  fully  harmonised  among 
Member States. It would describe in detail all the rules on detention, detention conditions, the 
types of alternatives  to  detention,  including  when and how they are to  be applied. It would 
leave no room for any discrepancies between Member States, including when they carry out 
the return procedure of illegally staying third-country nationals posing security risks. 

26 

 
 
The regulation would exhaustively regulate procedural aspects within the EU competence. It 
would  provide  for  an  EU-wide  return  decision  directly  applicable  and  enforceable  in  all 
Member States as of the entry into force of the regulation. The regulation would introduce a 
mandatory readmission form with a view to create a fully harmonised system for return across 
Member  States  and  would  increase  the  level  of  coordination  and  transparency  on  external 
action. 

Under  this  alternative,  the  possibility  to  carry  out  returns  to  a  third  country  other  than  the 
country of origin or of transit would be regulated with a detailed procedure setting out all the 
steps Member States need to follow to ensure return to such third country. A fully harmonised 
monitoring mechanism to assess the implementation and to take into account possible changes 
in the third country would be put in place. 

The regulation  would enhance communication and information  exchange  among  authorities 
within and between Member States, establishing effective processes and providing a clear legal 
basis. By fully aligning the EU return rules with  overarching European objectives, it would 
ensure  not  only  a  more  effective  approach  but  also  a  thoroughly  harmonised  and  stringent 
regulatory environment. 

5. A comparative analysis of alternatives A, B and C 

The three alternative ways forward each have their own merits, advantages and disadvantages, 
complementing  the  EU  legal  framework  on  migration  in  different  ways.  The  following 
comparative analysis assesses how each alternative would address the current challenges and 
objectives, taking into account the impact in terms of respecting fundamental rights, ensuring 
political feasibility, proportionality and subsidiarity, and reducing administrative burden.  

(a) Bringing improvements while working within the current framework 

The limitations of the current Return Directive have been noted. The recast proposal of 2018 
identified the main challenges that could not be sufficiently addressed, including difficulties 
and obstacles to successfully enforce return decisions due to diverging and inefficient national 
practices implementing the EU framework; inconsistent definitions and interpretations; lack of 
cooperation  on  the  part  of  third-country  nationals  which  leads  to  obstructing  the  return 
procedures; insufficient exchanges of necessary information in view of carrying out returns; as 
well  as  the  efficiency  of  cooperation  of  countries  of  origin.  Without  a  new  legislative 
instrument, these limitations would remain. Some of the key asks of Member States, including 
clarifying definitions, simplifying the process, allowing for new solutions to manage irregular 
migration such as returns to a country other than the country of origin or transit, and generally 
coming forward with a new approach on returns could not be achieved. 

The objective to simplify the process and increase effectiveness could hardly be achieved by 
maintaining the current situation. In the past years, expert discussions have focused on how 
return  rules  can  be  clarified  to  simplify  the  return  process74.  Divergent  practices  amongst 
Member States which have led to efficiency losses have been linked to a great extent to the 

74 Council Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion (IMEX); Strategic Committee on Immigration, 
Frontiers and Asylum; Contact Group - Return Directive (E02232). 

27 

 
 
 
different  interpretations  of  the  rules  in  the  current  Return  Directive.  Member  States  would 
continue  encountering  challenges  in  the  implementation  of  the  return  rules  due  to  the 
complexity of the system and the extensive body of jurisprudence. Efforts have been made to 
try  to  address  those  shortcomings  through  operational  action  and  guidance  in  the  form  of 
recommendations, but their impact has remained limited. 

A key discussion point on the questions of simplification and effectiveness has been the content 
and form of return decisions. Under this alternative, no harmonisation, even limited, would 
be possible. 

Recognition and enforcement of return decisions would remain a limited practice: currently 
some  Member  States  have  flexibilities  in  their  national  law  to  allow  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  a  decision  from  another  Member  State,  while  others  are  tied  to  the  legal 
obligation to issue a new return decision75.  

While remaining key for the implementation of the Pact, the return process would not be fully 
aligned with the innovations introduced in the asylum legislation and would not benefit of the 
efficiency gains, creating bottlenecks.  

Under  this  alternative,  the  objective  to  incentivise  the  cooperation  of  the  third-country 
national could only be achieved through recommendations and guidance. This would create a 
situation where third-country nationals would have different rights and obligations depending 
on  the  Member  State  carrying  out  the  return  procedure,  which  could  result  in  secondary 
movements. Maintaining the status quo and not introducing an obligation to cooperate would 
prolong current efficiency issues linked to the lack of cooperation of third-country nationals 
and would not meet the preference of most Member States to include an obligation for returnees 
to cooperate76. 

The objective to ensure the availability of the third-country national could be pursued by 
providing targeted guidance on how to manage the risk of absconding and on measures other 
than detention that could be used to respond to a specific risk of absconding. While this could 
improve  the  situation  in  some  Member  States,  it  would  not  provide  for  a  mandatory  legal 
framework and would not result in a streamlined approach across Member States. This could 
potentially lead to increased chances of evading the return process depending on the Member 
State where the illegally staying third-country national would be physically present.  

The objective to incentivise voluntary returns for third-country nationals who cooperate 
and  to  make  forced  return  a  credible  option  could  only  partially  be  achieved  through 
guidance and sharing of best practices. The initial findings of the ongoing study on gaps and 
needs of EU law in the area of return and the outcome of the consultation process highlight the 
importance to clarify the two concepts of voluntary returns and forced returns to help improve 
the efficiency and predictability of the process. The use of incentives and counselling, which 
has proven its effectiveness, would remain a choice of the individual Member State, allowing 
for full flexibility. Voluntary return would remain the priority and central pillar of the system, 

75 Based on discussions in the Contact Group - Return Directive (E02232). 
76 Informed by the stakeholder consultation conducted in the framework of the study on Gaps and Needs of EU 
Law in the Area of Return.  

28 

 
 
 
with no additional tools to follow-up in case voluntary return is not respected. Returnees who 
do not cooperate and who do not return within the period for voluntary departure would not 
automatically be channelled into a forced return procedure. This alternative would not improve 
rules to manage the risk of absconding. The possibility to return a third-country national to a 
third country other than the country of origin or transit – a possible incentive to cooperate – 
could not be implemented in the current legal framework. 

The objective of facilitating the return of persons posing a security risk would be pursued 
by using the derogations provided for in the Return Directive. It could be facilitated through 
targeted recommendations and sharing of best practices77. 

The objective of strengthening the European dimension would only be partially achieved, 
including in the framework of the Pact implementation and by developing additional guidance. 
In  the  consultation  process,  stakeholders  have  highlighted  the  importance  of  ensuring 
alignment  with  the  rules  of  the  Pact.  Under  this  alternative,  the  revision  of  the  return  rules 
would  remain  the  missing  piece  of  the  Pact,  and  a  misalignment  with  the  new  rules  of  the 
asylum system would persist, creating bottlenecks in the return process that would not allow to 
build on the efficiency gains made in other parts of the migration management system. 

The objective of increasing the effectiveness of the readmission procedure would only be 
reached  partially. While  the  Commission  could  provide  guidelines  and  recommendations  to 
overcome the strong fragmentation in approaches between Member States, including different 
procedures in place, the effectiveness of such an approach would be limited in terms of ensuring 
better  coordination,  addressing  the  limited  follow-up  of  enforceable  return  decisions  with 
readmission  requests,  and  optimising  the  use  of  leverages.  Increasing  the  number  of  EU 
readmission instruments in the current system would allow to reduce the fragmentation in the 
Union’s  engagement  with third countries. Working within the current  framework would not 
allow for the introduction of a sound legal basis for the exchange of data between Member 
States and transfer to third countries necessary to support and clarify the readmission process.  

Member States have asked for the possibility to implement so called “return hubs”. The current 
definition of return would not allow to return third-country nationals to countries different 
from their country of origin or transit, except in the cases detailed in the Return Directive.  

Fundamental  rights  would  continue  to  be  respected  according  to  the  rules  of  the  Return 
Directive  and  in  line  with  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights.  This  alternative  would  not 
provide for streamlined procedures with the ones of the Pact where relevant.  

Some  of  the  identified  objectives  could,  to  some  extent,  be  addressed  through  guidance, 
recommendations,  strategies,  action  plans  and  exchanges  of  best  practices.  This  alternative 
would have the advantage of leaving full flexibility to Member States to adapt and adjust as 
they see fit. However, this method has its limits. For example, the experiences in implementing 

77 Such as in the Staff working document on the return of illegally staying third-country nationals posing a security 
threat adopted by the Commission services on 16 December 2024, which provides an overview of Member States 
different practices and calls for making full use of the existing tools for the swift return of third-country nationals 
posing a security threat. 

29 

 
 
 
the  Commission  Recommendation78 and  the  thematic  Schengen  evaluation  on  return79  have 
shown that while some  Member States  may be  able to  implement  recommendations, others 
have  less  margin  of  manoeuvre,  depending  on  how  their  national  legal  framework  has 
transposed the Return Directive, and on the possibility to change such legal framework.  

Some of the key objectives identified in this document, such as establishing an obligation for 
the third-country national to cooperate and ensuring the availability of the returnee, would only 
be possible by amending national legislation. Several Member States have in fact introduced 
such provisions in their national law. This approach, however, risks having a distorting effect 
on the EU system, with different approaches that may prompt returnees to move to Member 
States with different rules, negatively impacting the coherence of the EU system and the Union 
and the Schengen area. 

(b) New legal framework (directive or regulation) introducing new tools, streamlined 
rules and simplification to make return rules more efficient and put in place an 
overall more harmonised common system for returns 

A  new  legal  instrument  which  provides  new  tools,  streamlined  rules  and  possibilities  to 
simplify and render return rules more efficient, would allow to modernise the EU return rules, 
establishing  an  overall  more  harmonised  common  system,  and  address  the  challenges 
identified, while leaving a certain room to adapt to national realities.  

The objective to simplify the process and increase effectiveness could be achieved with a 
thorough revision of the current rules embedded in an entirely new legislative instrument, to 
increase clarity and facilitate implementation. 

A  new  legal  framework  would  make  it  possible  to  provide  better  clarity  and  certainty  with 
regards to the application of the safeguards, as enshrined in the Charter, including the right to 
an effective remedy and legal assistance. Legal and linguistic assistance enables returnees to 
exercise the right to an effective remedy and can contribute to a more efficient process. Better 
clarity with regards to the application of the safeguards will create better certainty both for the 
third-country nationals  and for the national  authorities, with  a view to  contribute to  a more 
efficient  system.  A  number  of  support  systems,  including  counselling  and  potentially 
reintegration  support  where  relevant,  would  support  the  operational  aspects  of  the  return 
process. 

An important step towards the simplification and the European dimension of the system would 
be to set up the conditions for the recognition and enforcement of return decisions to happen 
systematically,  building  on  the  current  experience  with  non-mandatory  recognition  and 
enforcement. The new legal instrument would address the issues that have been identified in 
the expert exchanges, discussions with the Member States and in the ongoing study on gaps 
and needs of EU law in the area of returns, including by aligning key steps of the procedure 
and  improving  the  capacity  to  communicate  on  return  decisions  between  authorities.  This 

78  Commission  Recommendation  of  16  March  2023  on  mutual  recognition of  return decisions  and  expediting 
returns when implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C/2023/1763. 
79 European Commission, Schengen thematic evaluation report - Bridging national gaps: towards an effective EU 
return  system.  Available  at:  https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/schengen-thematic-evaluation-report-bridging-
national-gaps-towards-effective-eu-return-system_en. 

30 

 
 
 
mechanism would avoid issuing a new return decision to the same person, thereby preventing 
that a new appeal is launched in the Member State where the third-country national is illegally 
staying.  If  necessary,  the  original  return  decision  would  instead  be  appealed  in  the  issuing 
Member State.  

To ensure the completeness and effectiveness of the communication between national systems, 
without changing the form and content of national return decisions, the new legal instrument 
would introduce a ‘European Return Order’, a common form in which the key elements of 
the return decision would be inserted. The European Return Order would provide the necessary 
basis for recognition and enforcement of return decisions. It would co-exist with the national 
return decision and would be made available in the Schengen Information System. To allow 
for the necessary legal and technical arrangements to be in place so that the European Return 
Order  could  be  made  available  in  the  Schengen  Information  System,  a  two-step  approach 
would be necessary, where the recognition and enforcement of return decisions would remain 
optional for a limited period of time. The start of the implementation of the Pact would further 
support  at  systemic  level  the  implementation  of  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  return 
decision,  which  would  complement  and  strengthen  the  other  measures  linked  to  return  and 
asylum. The new legal instrument would clearly define how the recognition and enforcement 
of return decisions should take place. To ensure proportionality, it would take into account the 
concerns  raised  by  Member  States  during  consultations  and  set  out  limited  derogations  on 
which  Member  States  may  decide  not  to  recognise  the  return  decision  issued  by  another 
Member State. 

With  this  alternative,  the  common  European  dimension  of  the  return  system  could  be 
further strengthened to make cooperation simpler and more effective, minimise distortions 
and opportunities for abuse and increase coherence internally and towards third countries. In 
addition to the new rules on mutual recognition, the new legal instrument would identify the 
components  of  the  EU  common  system  for  returns  and  identify  avenues  for  cooperation 
between Member States. It would promote alignment between the key stages of the migration 
process and complement the rules introduced by the Pact, for example when it comes to legal 
assistance in case of an appeal or review before a judicial authority. The alignment with the 
relevant rules of the Pact would be sought particularly to further simplify and ensure coherence 
between the asylum and the return process. For example, alignment regarding health issues, 
protection  and  age  assessment  of  minors,  would  avoid  unjustified  diverging  standards, 
repetitions  and  ensure  coherence  with  different  parts  of  the  migration  process.  The  new 
legislative framework would provide an option for Member States to jointly manage irregular 
movements  between  Member  States,  based  on  cooperation  with  a  view  to  safeguarding  the 
Schengen area without internal border controls. 

The new rules would offer the appropriate degree of flexibility to allow Member States to adapt 
in the most efficient way to the different situations encountered. This would notably be done 
by allowing them to determine which administrative decisions should be issued separately 
or together. Issuing a return decision jointly with an entry ban and a detention order may be 
an efficient way for a national process, but in other instances flexibility would be needed for 
the latter two decisions to be issued at a different moment. The new system would create more 

31 

 
 
clarity  as  to  what  decisions  are  related  to  the  return  process  but  would  also  allow  Member 
States to retain flexibility as to when and how these decisions are issued, whether jointly or 
separately depending on what is most efficient.  

The objective to incentivise cooperation of third-country nationals would be achieved by 
introducing  a  clear  obligation  for  the  third-country  national  to  cooperate,  building  on  the 
approach adopted in the legal acts composing the Pact. The obligation imposed on the third-
country  national  should  comply  with  the  principles  of  necessity  and  proportionality.  Such 
obligation could be strengthened using incentives and consequences of non-cooperation, also 
building  on  the  experience  of  certain  Member  States.  Governmental  and  non-governmental 
entities  in  Member  States  have  explored  incentives,  such  as  enhanced  counselling  and 
reintegration support, in many cases adapted to the level of needs and the profile of the third-
country  national80  (intensive  case  management  has  proven  effective  to  increase  compliance 
with  return  decisions81). Along  with  incentives,  some  Member  States  have  also  introduced 
consequences for non-cooperation. In such cases, consultations suggest the need for a balance 
between encouraging voluntary compliance and safeguarding against vulnerability82.  

Consequences  for  non-cooperation  would  be  proportionate  and  based  on  an  individual 
assessment,  and  could  include,  among  others,  the  seizure  of  identity  or  travel  documents, 
financial penalties and the extension of entry bans. The dissuasive effect of a longer entry ban 
or  the  incentivising  effect  of  a  shorter  entry  ban  could  be  a  particularly  important  tool  to 
strengthen  the  cooperation  of  the  third-country  national.  Incentives  could  also  include  the 
possibility to return voluntarily within a certain date set out in the return decision or perceiving 
voluntary  return  and  reintegration  assistance.  The  new  legal  instrument  would  leave  some 
flexibility to the Member States on incentives and consequences of non-cooperation, to best 
adapt to the local context and to the situation of the third-country national.  

The  European  Parliament’s  substitute  impact  assessment  on  the  recast  Return  Directive 
proposal  found  that  the  proposed  recast  did  not  present  a  clear  link  between  the  duty  to 
cooperate and the rights of returnees and suggested to “clarify the balance between fairness 
and effectiveness in relation to the duty to cooperate”83. To achieve this, alternative B would 
reinforce procedural safeguards by including clear provisions on the right to information, to 
ensure that the third-country nationals are clearly informed about their rights and obligations 
and about the consequences in case the obligation is not respected. To this end, the requirements 
of the current framework concerning translations would be maintained, to ensure the person is 
properly informed, understands his or her obligations, to ensure clarity and predictability both 

at: 

2022.  Available 

80 Targeted consultation conducted within the study on Gaps and Needs of EU Law in the Area of Return; European 
Commission,  Incentives  and  Motives  for  Voluntary  Departure:  EMN,  Incentives  and  motives  for  voluntary 
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-07/EMN_Voluntary-
departure, 
depart_INFORM_final_080722.pdf, p. 3.  
81 European Commission, Schengen thematic evaluation report - Bridging national gaps: towards an effective EU 
return  system.  Available  at:  https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/schengen-thematic-evaluation-report-bridging-
national-gaps-towards-effective-eu-return-system_en.  
82 Targeted consultation conducted within the study on the Gaps and Needs of EU Law in the Area of Return. 
83  European  Parliamentary  Research  Service,  The  Return  Directive  2008/115/EC:  European  Implementation 
Assessment, EPRS Study, PE 642.840, June 2020. 

32 

 
 
 
for  the  third-country  national  and  the  national  authorities,  including  to  prevent  unnecessary 
litigation.  

Enhanced  cooperation  by  third-country  nationals  would  also  help  ensure  their  availability 
during the return process. Currently, the use of alternatives to detention varies, and so do 
national practices, in particular when it comes to the requirements for detention and the use of 
alternatives84. The new legal instrument would provide more clarity and streamline the use of 
detention  and  alternatives  to  detention.  It  would  provide  an  exhaustive  list  for  grounds  of 
detention and a clear framework for Member States to substantiate the need for detention to 
judicial authorities. Periodic Schengen evaluations show that this is already common practice 
in  certain  Member  States  and  allows  them  to  decrease  administrative  burden  and  apply 
detention  more effectively. To address  the lack of  detention  capacity, Member  States would 
have the possibility to detain third-country nationals in dedicated branches of facilities other 
than  specialised  facilities.  On  the  assessment  of  the  risk  of  absconding,  the  new  legal 
instrument would build on discussions with stakeholders and on the provision of the Reception 
Conditions  Directive85  and  take  into  account  the  considerations  of  civil  society  and  expert 
groups86. Improved assessment capacity would help national authorities not only to increase 
effective returns, but also to identify the kind of preventive measure to be applied to a specific 
case, considering the necessity and proportionality of these measures. Member States would 
retain some flexibility to continue implementing good practices that have proven their value in 
the national context.  

The  new  legal  instrument  would  further  incentivise  voluntary  returns  and  make  forced 
return a credible option, for example in connection to cases of lack of cooperation, and by 
providing for additional options such as the possibility to return to a third country other than 
the country of origin or transit. Voluntary return would not be an option as a rule to persons 
posing a risk of absconding or that represent a security risk. Moreover, this alternative would 
add flexibility, compared to the current framework, on the period of time for voluntary return. 
In  parallel,  the  use  of  counselling  and  reintegration  could  further  strengthen  the  uptake  of 
voluntary returns. The legal instrument would provide for Member States to establish return 
and reintegration counselling structures and national programmes to support readmission and 
reintegration. However,  Member States would retain flexibility to adapt counselling to their 
national systems and to decide the modalities and beneficiaries of counselling and reintegration 
provisions. The new instrument would clarify the possibility to “switch” between the different 
paths, which has been identified as a challenge in several Member States87.  

84 EMN, Study on Detention of Third-Country Nationals in the Context of Immigration, 2014. 
85 Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards 
for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast). 
86 Meijers Committee, Comment on the Recast of the EU Return Directive. Available at: https://www.commissie-
meijers.nl/comment/meijers-committee-comment-on-the-recast-of-the-eu-return-directive/#:~:text=CM2409-
,Meijers%20Committee%20comment%20on%20the%20recast%20of%20the%20EU%20Return,existing%20pr
ocedural%20and%20substantive%20rights;  Amnesty  International,  Key  considerations  in  the  context  of  the 
upcoming  revision  to  the  EU  legislative  framework  on  returns;  Civil  society  organisations,  Comments  on  the 
European Commission’s proposal for a recast of the Return Directive (COM(2018) 634 FINAL).  
87 European Commission, Schengen thematic evaluation report - Bridging national gaps: towards an effective EU 
return  system.  Available  at:  https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/schengen-thematic-evaluation-report-bridging-
national-gaps-towards-effective-eu-return-system_en.  

33 

 
 
 
Forced return monitoring is identified as a key gap in the periodic Schengen evaluations and 
both Member States as well as other stakeholders have called for more clarity. To strengthen 
monitoring of removals88, the new legal instrument would define some of its key aspects.  

The objective of facilitating the  return of persons posing a security  risk could  be further 
achieved  by  facilitating  the  identification  of  third-country  nationals  through  identity  and 
security checks carried out based on the Screening Regulation and other provisions of national 
law.  Third-country  nationals  posing  a  security  risk  would  be  subject  to  a  forced  return 
procedure and stricter rules on entry bans. Based on an individual assessment made by a judicial 
authority,  they  could  also  be  subject  to  longer  detention  periods. The  return  of  these  third-
country nationals should not be suspended, except if there is a risk to breach the principle of 
non-refoulement. This alternative would achieve the objective of having a more structured way 
to identify security risks in place but would leave margin for Member States to go into more 
details and implement additional security assessments if they identify a specific risk89, when 
and if needed. The legal instrument would clarify the scope concerning the return of persons 
posing a security risk by reinforcing the rules proposed in the recast Return Directive proposal 
i.e. removal as a rule, the possibility for longer entry bans and a separate ground for detention. 

Some  stakeholders  have  raised  the  risk  of  arbitrariness  in  qualifying  a  person  as  posing  a 
security risk, noting the need for clear definitions of what constitutes a risk to public order or 
national security90. Alternative B would clearly frame and define the categories of third-country 
nationals who can be considered to fall within the scope of posing security risks for the purpose 
of  applying  the  specialised  rules  in  the  return  legislation  and  ensure  proper  follow  up  and 
monitoring of persons falling into this category.   

The  interplay  between  criminal  law  and  the  return  legislation  would  remain  unchanged. 
Convicted criminals could remain outside the scope of the new legal framework since nothing 
prevents  Member  States  from,  where  applicable,  imposing  criminal  sanctions  to  illegally 
staying third-country nationals in accordance with national criminal law.   

The  objective  of  increasing  the  effectiveness  of  the  readmission  procedure  could  be 
achieved under this alternative by introducing some basic common rules  and increasing the 
coherence in the Union’s approach. To facilitate data exchange between Member States and 
with  third  countries,  the  necessary  legal  base  would  be  provided.  Data  would  be  shared, 
whenever possible, through the existing and upcoming EU information systems91. Whenever 
the data cannot be shared via the EU information systems, a legal basis92 to share this data via 

88 European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Monitoring the implementation of returns: a complex puzzle with 
missing pieces; Caritas Europa, Position Paper on Return – Human rights and human dignity at the centre in return 
policies; Finding Agreement in Return, Improved Return Monitoring Guidelines. 
89 Commission Staff Working Document on the Return of Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals Posing a 
Security Threat, (2024) 287 final. 
90 Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), Remarks with regard to the upcoming Commission new 
proposal for a Return Directive; Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), 
Position paper on EU Return Directive; European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), ECRE Comments on 
the Commission Proposal for a Recast Return Directive. 
91  EES, VIS,  ETIAS,  Eurodac,  SIS  and  ECRIS-TCN,  as  defined  by  point  15  of Article  4  of  Regulation  (EU) 
2019/818 of the European Parliament and of the Council.  
92 Within  the  meaning  and  in  compliance  with Article  6(1)(e)  and Article  6(3)  of  the  General  Data  Protection 
Regulation.  

34 

 
 
 
other secured channels in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)93 
would be established. In any event, the GDPR would apply in full as regards exchanges of data 
outside the EU information systems. To ensure proportionality, a reasonable threshold related 
to which categories of persons would be concerned should be established for the exchange of 
information concerning the criminal record.  

The  implementation  of  returns  of  third-country  nationals  to  countries  other  than  the 
country  of  origin  or  transit  would  be  made  possible  under  alternative  B.  This  would  be 
achieved by expanding the definition of country of return, to include return to a third country 
with which there is an agreement or arrangement on return. Discussions with stakeholders on 
the concept of “return hubs” have highlighted that such returns should happen on the basis of 
an international agreement or arrangement for return. The legal instrument would define the 
key elements  of such agreements  or  arrangements, the conditions  under  which such returns 
could  take  place  and  the  applicable  safeguards.  Families  with  minor  children  and 
unaccompanied  minors  would  be  excluded  from  the  scope  of  such  returns.  To  ensure 
sustainability and credibility, such agreements or arrangements would only be concluded with 
third countries that respect international human rights standards and principles in accordance 
with international law, including the respect of the principle of non-refoulement. A dedicated 
monitoring  mechanism  by  an  independent  body  would  be  put  in  place  to  monitor 
implementation and consider any changing circumstance in the third country. These rules will 
be subject to the supervision of courts. Such an approach would add the necessary flexibility 
for return to reflect the Member States’ bilateral relations with certain third countries, migratory 
realities  and  conditions  on  the  ground,  while  ensuring  full  adherence  to  international  and 
human rights law. 

Furthermore, the new rules should also allow for returns to a safe third country and to the first 
country of asylum in cases where an application for international protection of a third-country 
national has been rejected as inadmissible in relation to such third countries. This would close 
any remaining technical gaps linked to Article 37 of the Asylum Procedures Regulation that 
requires that a return decision is issued following a decision on inadmissibility on an asylum 
application.   

Finally, since alternative B could be implemented by a directive or a regulation, the question 
of the form of the instrument should be explored, as it would have important implications in 
terms of the extent to which certain objectives would be attainable. 

On the one hand, a directive would grant flexibility to Member States to adapt the return rules 
to  their  national  context.  Several  Member  States  have  indicated  their  preference  for  this 
solution.  However,  other  Member  States  have  advocated  for  more  approximation  and  a 
common system. A directive would imply significant limitations in relation to the objectives 
identified. For example, it could not establish directly applicable obligations on third-country 
nationals.  While  the  new  rules  could  be  more  detailed,  partially  reducing  the  need  for 
interpretation, their transposition would most likely result in new divergences between Member 

93 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of 
natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing 
Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). 

35 

 
 
 
States,  replicating  the  current  challenges. The  lack  of  coherence  and  harmonisation  among 
Member States would remain a key obstacle to achieve recognition and enforcement of other 
Member States’ return decisions across the EU. A directive could not establish a direct legal 
basis on data exchange in the context of return and readmission, on which the Member States 
could rely directly. Finally, in the ongoing discussions on new solutions to manage irregular 
migration, many Member States have called for the possibility to have an EU approach, which 
would not be possible to achieve through a directive.  

A regulation would ensure that key novelties are coherently addressed in all Member States, 
streamlining the return procedures and ensuring a more harmonised common approach. While 
in the short-term this would require an important adaptation in some Member States’ practices, 
significant efficiency gains can be expected over time with better clarity of the rules and less 
scope  for  diverging  national  jurisprudence.  A  regulation  would  provide  the  necessary 
foundation for recognition and enforcement of return decisions and would guarantee that all 
Member States apply the rules in the same way94, reducing the risk of divergent application. 
The  rules  would  enter  into  force  at  the  same  time.  Obligations  imposed  on  third-country 
nationals would be equal in all Member States. This would help to address the distortions in 
the  current  system,  where  differences  between  Member  States  lead  to  loopholes  in  the 
functioning  of  the  EU  return  system.  Minimum  safeguards  for  the  rights  of  affected  third-
country nationals would be harmonised, encouraging greater mutual trust. A regulation would 
put  in  place  the  elements  for  a  more  joined-up  return  system  at  EU  level  and  ensure  better 
coherence  with  the  Pact  and  the  Schengen  rules,  which  are  almost  all  regulated  through 
regulations. 

(c)  New legal framework (regulation) setting out streamlined and fully harmonised 

rules 

Alternative C would take the form of a regulation setting up a common EU system for returns 
with  detailed  rules  laying  down  all  its  elements.  It  would  include  many  of  the  elements 
identified in the previous option, which will be harmonised. It would result in full coherence 
and unity among Member States. 

The  objective  to  simplify  the  process  and  increase  effectiveness  would  be  achieved  by 
establishing  a harmonised system  with  detailed rules and deadlines, as well as a distinction 
between administrative and judicial procedures for return. The clarity, uniformity and level of 
detail of the rules would reduce the risk of unclarity. Going further in the harmonisation of the 
return system, a unified governance structure would increase the operational effectiveness by 
coordinating  returns  across  Member  States  and  creating  synergies95.  For  example,  the 
evaluation  of  the  Frontex  Regulation  found  that  Frontex  is  hindered  by  the  currently 
fragmented governance structures in Member States96. 

94 The targeted consultation conducted within the study on the Gaps and Needs of EU Law in the Area of Return 
indicates that for mandatory recognition and enforcement of return decision a regulation is necessary.  
95 This is informed by the stakeholder consultation and preliminary analysis carried out within the ongoing study 
on Gaps and Needs of EU Law in the Area of Return. 
96 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 
2019/1896 on the European Border and Coast Guard, including a review of the Standing Corps, COM(2024) 75 
final. 

36 

 
 
 
The content and form of the return decision would be fully harmonised and take the form of an 
EU return decision, applicable across Member States and directly uploaded in the SIS. This 
would give a strong EU dimension to returns but would require exceptions for joint decisions 
on termination of legal stay and return decisions that would be difficult to design in a fully 
harmonised return system due to national approaches and competence on legal residence. The 
consultation process carried out in the context of the study on gaps and needs of EU law in the 
area of return showed that the feasibility of providing an exhaustive set of mandatory common 
elements in the return decision is considered very low by the stakeholders97. 

The introduction of an EU return decision would make recognition and enforcement of such 
return decisions mandatory in all cases as soon as the regulation would enter into force. The 
harmonisation  would  also  have  to  cover  legal  remedies  (deadlines  for  lodging  appeals  and 
duration  of  appeal  procedures,  suspensive  effect,  legal  aid,  etc.)  and  detention  rules.  By 
reaching such a degree of harmonisation, the need for Frontex support could increase and its 
tasks would have to be adapted accordingly.  

The objective of strengthening the European dimension would be fully achieved with this 
alternative.  A  regulation  with  fully  streamlined  and  harmonised  rules  would  enable  the 
establishment of a truly common EU approach to returns. However, this alternative might be 
premature and would go against the need for a minimum of flexibility, strongly advocated for 
by the majority of Member States.  

The objective to incentivise cooperation of the third-country national would be achieved 
with  the  introduction  of  the  obligation  to  cooperate  for  the  third-country  national, 
complemented by detailed rules on the applicable consequences in case of non-respect and on 
the  possible  incentives.  This  would  ensure  that  the  same  incentives  and  consequences  are 
applied  uniformly  across  Member  States  and  could  reduce  secondary  movements.  This 
approach  would  exclude,  however,  many  of  the  good  practices  currently  implemented  in 
Member States to incentivise cooperation, which are based on access to certain privileges such 
as social benefits and trainings, largely provided for by national legislation.  

The objective to increase the availability of third-country nationals subject to return could 
be achieved by addressing the issue of the risk of absconding of returnees through imposing 
strict rules on detention and laying down the details of the use of alternatives to detention. This 
would guarantee uniformity in the Member States’ approach. 

The  objective  to  incentivise  voluntary  returns  by  making  forced  return  a  credible 
alternative  could  be  pursued  by  working  on  the  strands  identified  under  the  previous 
alternative. The  possibility  to  allow  for  voluntary  returns  could  be  subject  to  more  detailed 
conditions. The regulation would comprehensively address all the possible consequences and 
incentives for non-cooperation as well as regulate in detail forced return monitoring. 

The objective of facilitating the return of persons posing a security risk could be achieved 
similarly to the previous alternative. Security checks could be made mandatory for all illegally 

97 Targeted consultation conducted within the study on the Gaps and Needs of EU Law in the Area of Return. 

37 

 
 
 
staying  third-country  nationals.  While  this  would  increase  the  possibility  to  detect  early  a 
security risk, the additional administrative burden should be considered.  

The objective of increasing the effectiveness of the readmission procedure would be largely 
achieved under this alternative. It  would set  up readmission as  a fully  regulated part of the 
return  process,  with  definitions  and  procedures  unified  at  EU  level,  put  in  place  strong 
assurances of transparency and strengthening coherence towards third countries. Similarly to 
the  second  alternative,  it  would  create  a  sound  legal  basis  for  the  exchange  of  personal 
information between Member States and with third countries.  

Under this alternative, return to a third country other than the country of origin or transit 
would  be  possible,  like  under  the  previous  alternative.  To  ensure  a  coherent  and  unified 
approach,  the  new  legal  instrument  could  list  in  detail  the  procedure  for  such  returns. 
Fundamental  rights  safeguards  would  need  to  be  included.  However,  such  returns  would 
inevitably  involve  the  need  to  conclude  an  agreement  or  arrangement  with  a  third  country. 
Having the exact procedure set out in EU law would significantly limit the possibility to adapt 
each  agreement  or  arrangement  to  different  realities  and  severely  constrain  the  room  for 
manoeuvre of the EU and Member States in negotiations with third countries.  

This alternative would ensure that all steps under the return procedure are carried out under the 
framework of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This alternative would make it possible to 
reinforce and clarify the procedural safeguards at each step of the procedure, providing further 
procedural rules compared to alternative B. 

Introducing  a  new  legal  framework  in  the  form  of  a  regulation  with  streamlined  and  fully 
harmonised  rules  could  not  fulfil  the  objective  to  provide  the  appropriate  degree  of 
flexibility.  Some  of  the  key  identified  objectives,  such  as  incentivising  cooperation  of  the 
returnees, encouraging voluntary returns and managing the risk of absconding do not need to 
be exhaustively regulated at EU level to be effective. Some flexibility would enable Member 
States to better target the implementation of the rules to their national realities, which in turn 
would create a better and more efficient system overall.  

Some  important  horizontal  considerations  also  come  into  play.  Going  from  the  current 
Return Directive to a comprehensive regulation harmonising return in detail would likely be 
premature, technically challenging to implement and politically difficult for Member States to 
accept. The targeted consultations indicate that such proposal may result in difficult and lengthy 
negotiations,  contrary  to  the  call  of  Member  States  to  swiftly  put  in  place  a  revised  legal 
framework on return.  

A  regulation  with  little or  no  flexibility,  harmonising  all  aspects  of  the  return  policy  would 
arguably  go  much  further  than  the  harmonisation  achieved  in  the  Pact.  The  legislative 
framework of the Pact, though  mainly  based on regulations,  streamlines and harmonises an 
important part of the asylum process, while leaving some flexibility to Member States. In the 
context of the Pact implementation, Member States have come a long way to find solutions in 
their national systems to link asylum and return. A new regulation harmonising all aspects of 
the return process may be difficult to reconcile with some of these efforts and create unintended 
complexity. 

38 

 
 
6. Identified way forward 

Following an assessment of how the different alternatives perform in terms of addressing the 
challenges  and  achieving  the  objectives  identified,  and  taking  into  account  considerations 
relating to subsidiarity, proportionality and administrative burden, the impact on fundamental 
rights and the political feasibility, alternative B emerges as the identified way forward.  

The  identified  way  forward  is  expected  to  simplify  and  speed  up  the  return  process  by 
creating a common system with the necessary unity and coherence at EU level, to ensure the 
effective functioning of the Pact, the stability of the Schengen area, and a stronger position vis-
à-vis third countries. It would combine the need for streamlined and more harmonised common 
EU rules on return, with the need for granting a certain degree of flexibility to the Member 
States. It would allow for adjustments to fit the national realities and the national contexts of 
migration management, particularly when it comes to incentives to cooperate, consequences of 
non-cooperation, choice and modalities of alternatives to detention, and procedural aspects of 
the process, including the appeals. By bringing all these strands together and increasing the 
overall performance of the return and readmission system, the identified way forward would 
allow to increase the number of returns, in line with the public expectations. 

The identified way forward would provide several key innovations aimed at increasing the 
effectiveness,  consistency,  and  fairness  of  the  return  process  across  Member  States,  while 
respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and leaving appropriate flexibility 
to Member States, where needed, to better achieve the objectives identified. 

The identified way forward would foresee common procedural rules for the issuance of return 
decisions and entry bans, ensuring consistency across Member States.  Under the new system, 
the  return  decisions  will  continue  to  include  a  clear  obligation  to  leave  the  EU  that,  if  not 
complied with, should be accompanied by an entry ban. To foster the credibility of the Union’s 
return system, the dissuasive effect of entry bans should be enhanced by increasing their length. 
The maximum duration of an entry ban would be even longer for persons posing security risks. 
In any case, the new rules would allow to extend the duration of the entry ban by successive 
periods based on an individual assessment. National authorities would have the flexibility to 
determine the total duration of entry bans so as to respond in a proportionate manner to the 
relevant circumstances of each case. The regulation would set clear common rules that enhance 
the coherence of the EU-wide system and facilitate cooperation between authorities of different 
Member States in case of secondary movements, while identifying specific situations in which 
Member  States  need  flexibility  to  address  specific  national  circumstances  arising  from  the 
national legal order. In terms of administrative burden, the standardised rules would reduce 
complexity, making return procedures more efficient and less burdensome for authorities.  

The  introduction  of  the  EU  Return  Order  and  of  a  mechanism  for  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of return decisions issued by another Member State would be an important 
step  for  simplification.  It  would  reduce  administrative  burden  at  EU  level  by  reducing  the 
number  of  return  decisions  issued  by  individual  Member  States.  It  would  also  give  a  truly 
European dimension to returns and discourage secondary movements between Member States. 
The EU Return Order, which would include the key elements of the return decision, would be 

39 

 
 
made available in SIS and the additional administrative burden would be minimal, as the form 
would complement and streamline some of the information that is already to be introduced in 
the SIS. It is expected also to limit the need for additional exchanges. To give Member States 
time to adapt to the new mechanism, the switch from voluntary to mandatory recognition would 
be  delayed  compared  to  the  entry  into  application  of  the  legal  instrument  and  linked  to  the 
outcome of a review aimed at verifying that all the necessary legal and technical arrangement 
for the making available of the European Return Order in SIS are in place. This would also 
allow for the implementation of the Pact to have started, creating the optimal conditions for the 
recognition of return decisions to be implemented as part of the migration management system. 

The fundamental rights of returnees would be fully respected also by means of procedural 
safeguards, ensuring that return decisions are subject to scrutiny, including the right to appeal 
and  the  prohibition  of  refoulement,  with  due  attention  to  vulnerable  persons  and  the  best 
interests of the child. The enforcement of return decisions, removal orders and entry bans would 
be suspended until the time limit within which third-country nationals can appeal has expired. 
During that time limit, national authorities  would not enforce the return decision but would 
nonetheless be able to prepare the return operation or detain the person if conditions are met.  
After that time limit, a judicial authority would decide if an appeal should suspend the decision 
pending the outcome of the appeal. The new rules would also provide clarity by aligning with 
the caselaw of the European Court of Justice on the suspension of the enforcement of the return 
decision  in  case  of  a  breach  of  the  principle  of  non-refoulement.  The  right  to  good 
administration  would  remain  a  central  pilar  and  be  ensured  by  the  safeguards  around 
administrative decisions.  

The possibility for the third-country national to request a written or oral translation of the main 
elements  of  the  return  decision  (the  grounds  on  which  the  return  decision  is  based  and 
information about a remedy), already provided for in the current legal framework, would be 
maintained to ensure that the third-country national is informed and able to comply with the 
obligation  to  cooperate.  Similarly,  the  new  instrument  would  preserve  Member  States’ 
flexibility on how to organise the translation  - including by having a standardised template. 
Provisions  on  free  legal  assistance  upon  request,  also  provided  for  in  the  current  legal 
framework,  would  be  maintained  and  partially  aligned  with  the  Pact  rules.  Common  rules 
ensuring that third-country nationals are properly informed of their rights and obligations is an 
important step in reducing as much as possible the risk for lengthy litigation and can ultimately 
serve to facilitate and speed up the process. Enabling third-country nationals to be correctly 
informed would contribute to better reasoned claims and a faster treatment by courts. 

Specific  rules  or  derogations  would  be  introduced  for  minors,  unaccompanied  minors  or 
families  with  children,  where  necessary.  The  right  to  liberty  would  be  protected  by  rules 
framing  detention,  which  could  be  ordered  only  to  the  extent  that  it  is  proportionate  and 
necessary to prepare the return or carry out the removal. The new instrument would go further 
than  the  current  Directive  by  introducing  common  rules  on  alternatives  to  detention,  which 
should be proportionate to the risk of absconding. It would also guarantee a right to information 
of the returnee by setting clear rules and procedures to exercise this right. The new instrument 
would maintain the current provisions on the need to establish a monitoring mechanism for 

40 

 
 
removals, but would provide more clarity as to what this implies concretely in line with the 
recommendations  provided  regularly  in  the  context  of  Schengen  evaluations,  agreed  by  the 
Council.  

In line with the new asylum legislation, the identified way forward would explicitly impose an 
obligation  on  third-country  nationals  to  cooperate  with  the  return  process,  to  be 
complemented  by  positive  incentives  and  clear  consequences  for  non-cooperation.  The 
system would remain fair and balanced, respecting the fundamental rights of individuals by 
offering them the opportunity  to  challenge decisions and access  legal  remedies. In terms  of 
subsidiarity, the introduction of the obligation to cooperate would ensure that Member States 
can pursue returns more effectively, while retaining flexibility in implementation at the national 
level. This innovation would aim at significantly reducing administrative burden, as the lack 
of cooperation of the third-country nationals, particularly in the identification process and in 
terms  of  availability  for  the  procedures,  has  been  identified  as  one  of  the  main  elements 
hampering the return process.  

One of the core responsibilities of the Union is to ensure an area of freedom, security and justice 
for  its  citizens.  In  light  of  the  evolving  geopolitical  landscape  and  the  emergence  of  new 
security threats, the EU must adopt a comprehensive and coordinated approach to security. In 
line  with  the  European  Internal  Security  Strategy98,  this  also  requires  that  security 
considerations be integrated and mainstreamed across all EU legislation. Those aspects have 
been duly taken into account in shaping the identified way forward, which would provide for 
specific  rules  to  facilitate  and  speed  up  the  return  of  third-country  nationals  posing a 
security risk, to respond to a clear political priority and to the concerns expressed by citizens. 
For this reason, persons posing a security risk would be included in the scope of the identified 
way forward. By issuing return decisions, entering return alerts and flagging security risks, the 
collective  interest  of  having  common  rules  on  how  to  handle  the  situations  raised  by  these 
individuals, including also a trace in SIS, would be met. Convicted criminals, on the other side, 
could remain outside the scope as they are subject to criminal law: for this reason, there would 
be no need to provide explicitly for an exemption in the regulation, given the different legal 
base. To facilitate identification, third-country nationals illegally staying in the territory of the 
Member States would be subject to identity and security checks. Stricter rules would apply to 
third-country  national  in  terms  of  the  form  of  return,  the  time  and  conditions  of  detention, 
length of entry bans and appeals. To ensure that persons posing security risks leave the territory 
of the EU  as  swiftly  as  possible, those third-country nationals  would  be  subject  to  removal 
without  being  granted  a  date  until  which  they  need  to  leave.  These  measures  would  be 
proportionate in view of the important security and public order risks, ensuring the respect of 
the principle of non-refoulement. 

Voluntary and forced return would be made mutually reinforcing under the identified way 
forward. The obligation to issue a return decision to all illegally staying third-country nationals 
would remain in the identified way forward to ensure adequate accountability and to be able to 

98 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  ProtectEU:  a  European  Internal  Security  Strategy 
(COM(2025) 148 final). 

41 

 
 
 
monitor returns from the EU. The return decision would be enforced through removal of those 
third-country  nationals  who  refuse  to  cooperate,  abscond  to  another  Member  State,  pose 
security risks or do not respect the terms for voluntary returns. A date by which the person can 
leave voluntarily would be indicated in the return decision in the other cases. The system would 
be built so as to allow to switch from voluntary return to removal, and vice versa. For instance, 
if a third-country national involved in a removal process decides to cooperate, Member States 
could redirect that person in the voluntary return channel. Moreover, voluntary return would 
remain  a  flexible  form  of  return:  the  date  by  which  a  third-country  national  must  leave  the 
territory of the Member States could either be prolonged when it expires or extended from the 
outset beyond the normal period usually granted, for example to ensure alignment with national 
voluntary  return  programmes.  The  right  to  information  for  returnees  would  be  reinforced, 
enabling individuals to make informed decisions about their return, while understanding the 
consequences  of  non-cooperation.  The  proportionality  principle  would  be  maintained,  with 
removals to be used when necessary and clear safeguards in place. Fundamental rights would 
be protected, including by the availability of legal remedies, the provision of information to 
ensure that individuals are fully aware of their choices and their rights in the return process, 
and free legal assistance and representation upon request for appeals and judicial review (with 
certain 
limitations).  Legal  assistance  and  representation  would  be  automatic  for 
unaccompanied  minors.  These  choices  take  into  account  the  consideration  that  voluntary 
returns are the most effective option, while ensuring that returns are actually implemented and 
the risk of absconding minimised. 

The  identified  way  forward  would  enhance  Member  States'  ability  to  manage  the  risk  of 
absconding by introducing objective criteria to assess this risk and providing tools to ensure 
that the third-country national is available for the return process. Detention would be necessary 
to ensure efficiency in the return process where there is a risk of absconding. In addition, in 
case where a third-country national does not cooperate with the obligation to remain on the 
territory of the concerned Member State and moves to another Member State, this would be 
tantamount to absconding. Consequently, the voluntary return option would not be available as 
a form of return. This would be balanced with the need to respect individual freedoms, using 
alternatives to detention where appropriate, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. 
In terms of subsidiarity, Member States would have the flexibility to apply the criteria and tools 
in a manner suited to their national realities. The overarching framework would ensure that the 
national  tools  align  with  EU-wide  standards,  reducing  potential  inconsistencies  that  could 
encourage secondary movements. To respect the fundamental rights, the identified way forward 
would ensure that individuals' dignity and rights are upheld throughout the process and would 
provide for alternatives to detention. The availability of the returnee for the return process is 
key to reduce the administrative burden and increase the effectiveness and speed of the process. 

An innovative feature of the proposal would be to expand the definition of countries of return 
to include additional options compared to the current Directive. The proposal would include 
the possibility of returning individuals to a third country other than their country of origin 
or  a  country  of  transit,  subject  to  various  condition  as  described  in  the  previous  sections. 
Regarding  proportionality,  this  innovation  would  provide  flexibility  for  Member  States  to 
pursue returns in a way that ensures effective returns and migration management. This way 

42 

 
 
forward has been identified taking into account the results of a number of strategic discussions 
with  Member  States  and  the  input  of  civil  society,  international  organisations  and  the 
Fundamental  Rights Agency,  to  arrive  at  a  solution  that  is  both  practically  feasible  and  in 
respects of fundamental rights.  

Introducing readmission as an integral part of the return process, the identified way forward 
would lay down common steps in the readmission procedure, with the necessary flexibility, to 
bring a more coherent and credible approach towards third countries and increase effectiveness. 
The administrative burden in implementing these innovations would consist in adapting to a 
certain  extent  national  processes,  building  on  the  already  existing  procedures  for  the 
implementation of EU readmission agreements and arrangements. The identified way forward 
would  remain  proportional,  taking  into  account  operational  realities  and  bilaterally  agreed 
procedures. Upcoming work on digitalisation of case management, announced in the Political 
Guidelines, would further mitigate the administrative burden.  

The identified way forward would provide for a clear legal basis for data exchange among 
Member States and with third countries, reducing inconsistencies and ensuring more efficient 
and secure information-sharing, which further streamlines the return process. Such approach 
would mirror the one followed in the context of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, whereby a 
clear  legal  basis  for  information  sharing  between  Member  States  was  established99.  The 
specific  technical  means  of  communication  of  this  data  may  also  be  detailed  in  a  separate 
legislative proposal that will address the digitalisation of case management in the area of return, 
readmission and reintegration. Establishing a clear legal basis or data exchange among Member 
States and with third countries would reduce administrative burden by facilitating exchanges 
between  national  systems  and  with  third  countries,  thereby  enabling  more  effective 
coordination  and  reducing  duplication  of  efforts.  Proportionality  would  be  maintained  by 
ensuring  that  data  exchange  is  focused  and  limited  to  relevant  cases,  avoiding  unnecessary 
intrusions on privacy. Proportionality would also be guaranteed by establishing a reasonable 
threshold with regards to the cases for which criminal data that could be transferred to third 
countries. This would only concern convictions of serious offenses, such as the ones mentioned 
in European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) Regulation100. Subsidiarity 
would be respected by establishing at EU level a clear legal basis for processing, while giving 
Member  States  the  responsibility  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  remaining  data  protection 
requirements (such as the retention period). The identified way forward would ensure that data 
exchanges are carried out in a way that upholds fundamental rights, with clear protections in 
place  to  prevent  misuse  of  personal  data  and  ensure  that  the  rights  of  individuals  are 
safeguarded.  

The preferred choice in terms of legal instrument would be a regulation. This instrument would 
respond  to  key  objectives  linked  to  simplification,  streamlining,  efficiency  and  coherence 
among Member States, and create an overall more harmonised common system at EU level to 

99 Article 51 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on 
asylum and migration management. 
100 Regulation (EU) 2018/1240 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 September 2018 establishing 
a  European  Travel  Information  and  Authorisation  System  (ETIAS)  and  amending  Regulations  (EU)  No 
1077/2011, (EU) No 515/2014, (EU) 2016/399, (EU) 2016/1624 and (EU) 2017/2226. 

43 

 
 
 
manage returns with obligations imposed directly on the Union, the Member States and the 
third-country nationals. A regulation would provide the best basis for a more uniform approach 
among  Member  States  to  cooperate  on  returns  and  readmission,  including  through  Frontex 
support. While not being an end in itself, the harmonisation of the procedures would serve the 
purpose  of  bringing  rules  closer  so  that  the  discrepancies  that  are  detrimental  to  the 
effectiveness of the process would be addressed. It would lead Member States’ authorities and 
Frontex  to  work  more  coherently  together  and  among  themselves  thereby  facilitating  and 
simplifying the process for all actors acting under common rules. While a shift from a directive 
to regulation is an important change and will require adaptations to Member States’ system it 
should result in efficiency gains for the common EU system for returns. A regulation will ensure 
that  third-country  nationals  are  treated  coherently  through  all  steps  of  the  return  procedure 
regardless  of  the  Member  State  in  which  they  are  illegally  present  and  will  provide  the 
necessary  tools  to  tackle  together  a  common  EU  challenge.  It  would  align  with  the  Pact 
legislation on asylum, where the majority of legal acts are regulations. The needs of Member 
States  that  expressed  a  preference  for  a  directive,  with  a  view  to  ensuring  the  necessary 
flexibility to adapt to national systems, have been taken into consideration. Flexibility would 
be maintained as necessary by way of derogations or exceptions, without compromising the 
coherence and effectiveness of the system.  

The  stakeholders’  political  acceptance  of  the  identified  way  forward  has  been  carefully 
assessed, including through a wide consultation of stakeholders, as detailed in this document. 

The  proposal  for  a  Return  Regulation  is  part  of  the  comprehensive  approach  to  manage 
migration as set out in the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation and complements 
the legislative framework of the Pact adopted in May 2024. The identified way forward would 
align with the key aspects of the Pact legislation, notably the Asylum Procedures Regulation 
and the Return Border Procedures Regulation, the Screening Regulation, the new Reception 
Conditions Directive as well as the Schengen Borders Code.  

The choices made in the identified way forward would also encourage cooperation and foster 
a  unified  approach  to  returns,  eventually  increasing  common  trust  in  the  EU  migration 
management system. Returns would take place in a dignified manner by reinforcing provisions 
on voluntary return and by encouraging reintegration and promoting the use of counselling. By 
introducing a system of obligations and incentives, the identified way forward would increase 
returnees’ ownership of their trajectory.  

44 

 
 
 
 
Annex I – Stakeholder consultations  

Broad  stakeholder  consultations  on  the  future  return  legislation  have  taken  place  to  gather 
views  and  concrete  suggestions  from  Member  States,  European  Institutions,  international 
organisations,  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs),  civil  society,  research  entities,  and 
third countries working on, or with experience in the subject of returns. The consultations have 
allowed the Commission to gather updated information and address possible gaps in the current 
return legislation.  

Meetings 

- 

Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum Consultations, 10 April 2024. 

-  COREPER II – Towards a more assertive return policy, 16 September 2024.  

- 

Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum Consultations, 27 September 
2024. 

-  MPI Europe and UNHCR – Beyond the Pact: Addressing Maritime Arrivals and 

Strengthening Return, 8 October 2024. 

- 

JHA Council – Enhancing the effectiveness of EU’s return policy, 10 October 2024. 

-  Workshop on Comprehensive Decisions and Last-minute Asylum applications, 22 October 

2024. 

- 

Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum Consultations, 1 November 
2024. 

-  Meeting on EU return policies between COM and Civil Society (PICUM, JRS Belgium, 

Caritas EU and EuroMed Rights), 19 November 2024. 

-  Meeting with the Netherlands on the future return legislation, 20 January 2025.  

-  Meeting with Sweden on the future return legislation, 22 January 2025. 

-  Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum Consultations, 13 February 

2025. 

Papers and non-papers from Member States  

-  Spain, Non-paper on Key priorities for Spain regarding a new legislative framework on 

returns – forced return aspects, 22 January 2024.  

-  Denmark, Non-paper on a more effective return system, March 2024. 

-  Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway and Lichtenstein, Non-paper on the 

need for legislative reforms for more effective returns, 8 March 2024. 

45 

 
 
 
 
-  Denmark and other Member States101, Joint Letter on New Solutions to address irregular 

migration to Europe, 15 May 2024. 

-  Austria and the Netherlands, Non-paper on Objectives for a New Legislative Proposal for 

More Effective Returns, 4 October 2024.102 

-  Revision of the legislative framework on return, 9 December 2024. 

-  Germany, Proposal on a New version of the Return Directive, 16 December 2024. 

-  Germany, Suggestions for reform of the Return Directive, 10 January 2025. 

-  France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, Non-paper on Concerns about the idea of 

mandatory mutual recognition of return decisions, 24 January 2025. 

-  Netherlands, Non-paper on Required legislative reforms for more effective returns. 

-  Denmark, Priorities for a new upcoming act on return. 

-  Czech Republic, Preliminary suggestions for the new Return Directive. 

European Parliament Research Service: 

-  European Parliamentary Research Service, The proposed Return Directive (recast), 

Substitute Impact Assessment, EPRS Study, February 2019. 

-  European  Parliamentary  Research  Service,  The  Return  Directive  2008/115/EC:  An 

Overview of its Implementation, EPRS Study, PE 631.727, June 2019. 

-  European Parliamentary Research Service, The Return Directive 2008/115/EC: European 

Implementation Assessment, EPRS Study, PE 642.840, June 2020. 

-  European Parliamentary Research Service, The proposed Return Directive (recast), 

Substitute Impact Assessment, EPRS Study, February 2019. 

Papers and comments from different stakeholders:  

-  Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), Position 

paper on EU Return Directive, April 2015. 

-  Swedish Red Cross, Asylum Application Rejected – Return: Results and Challenges 

2008–2015, 2016.  

-  European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Policy Note 09: Return – No Safety in 
Numbers: ECRE's Analysis of Recent Developments in EU Policy on Return of Migrants, 
2017. 

-  European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Policy Note 13: Voluntary Departure 

and Return: Between a Rock and a Hard Place, August 2018. 

101 BG, CZ, EE, EL, IT, CY, LT, LV, MT, NL, AT, PL, RO and FI. 
102 Supported by CH, CZ, DE, DK, EL, FI, FR, HR, IT, LI, LU, MT, NO, PL, SE and SK. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
-  Caritas Europa, Position Paper on Human Rights and Human Dignity at the centre in 

return policies, 9 February 2018. 

-  European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), ECRE Comments on the Commission 

Proposal for a Recast Return Directive, November 2018. 

-  European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Policy Note 19: Return Policy: 

Desperately Seeking Evidence and Balance, July 2019. 

-  European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Policy Note 17: Protection in 

Afghanistan: The Impact of Ongoing Conflict and Security Risks on Returns, February 
2019. 

-  ACT Alliance EU; Caritas Europa; European Federation of the Community of 
Sant'Egidio; CCME – Churches' Commission for Migrants in Europe; ICMC – 
International Catholic Migration Commission; COMECE – Commission of the Bishops' 
Conferences of the European Community (Secretariat); JRS-Europe – Jesuit Refugee 
Service Europe; Protestant Church in Germany (EKD); Don Bosco International; QCEA 
– Quaker Council for European Affairs, Comments on the European Commission’s 
proposal for a recast of the Return Directive (COM(2018) 634 FINAL), 7 February 2019. 

-  Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), CCBE Comments on the 

Commission Proposal for a Directive on Common Standards and Procedures in Member 
States for Returning Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals, 29 March 2019. 

-  UNICEF, the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR); the International Organization for 
Migration (IOM); Save the Children; the Platform for International Cooperation on 
Undocumented Migrants (PICUM); the European Council for Refugees and Exiles 
(ECRE) and Child Circle, Guidance to respect children’s rights in return policies and 
practices, September 2019. 

-  European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Policy Note 26: Return as “Non-

Essential Travel” in the Time of Pandemic, June 2020. 

-  European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Policy Note 35: The JDMC: 

Deporting People to the World’s Least Peaceful Country - ECRE’s Analysis of the Joint 
Declaration on Migration Cooperation (JDMC) Between the EU and Afghanistan , 
March 2021. 

-  European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Policy Note 42: Monitoring the 
Implementation of Returns: A Complex Puzzle with Missing Pieces, December 2022. 

-  Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), 

Immigration Detention and De Facto Detention: What Does the Law Say?, September 
2022. 

-  Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), FAQ: Non-
Refoulement in the Context of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, December 2023. 

47 

 
 
-  ACT Alliance and other civil society organisations103, Joint letter on deleting the 

reference to readmission as a conditionality in the draft GSP reform, 27 February 2023. 

-  Caritas Europa, What's Wrong with the EU's Pact on Migration?, 10 April 2024. 

-  European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), ECRE Comments on the Regulation 
of the European Parliament and of the Council on Asylum and Migration Management, 
Amending Regulations (EU) 2021/1147 and (EU) 2021/1060 and Repealing Regulation 
(EU) No 604/2013, May 2024. 

-  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Strengthening Protection 

and Solutions in the Context of Mixed Movements of Refugees and Migrants, June 2024. 

-  European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Comments on the Directive (EU) 

2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 laying down 
standards for the reception of applicants for international protections (recast), September 
2024. 

-  Finding Agreement in Return (FAiR), Working Paper: Legal Review of Fundamental 

Rights in Return processes, 30 September 2024. 

-  Hungary, Presidency Paper: Towards a more assertive return policy, 2 October 2024. 

-  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Migration Policy 

Institute (MPI Europe), Beyond the Pact: Addressing maritime arrivals and strengthening 
returns, 8 October 2024. 

-  Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), FAQ: 

Reporting Obligations and ‘Firewalls’, November 2024. 

-  11.11.11 and other civil society organisations104, EU Leaders should uphold right to 

asylum in Europe, 12 November 2024. 

-  Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), Statement on recent developments 

and upcoming EU actions in the field of asylum, 21 November 2024. 

-  Meijers Committee, Comment on the Recast of the EU Return Directive, December 2024. 

103 EU Anti-Slavery International, Brot für die Welt, CARE International, Caritas Europa, Caritas International 
Belgium, Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe, Clean Clothes Campaign - International Office, CSW, 
Danish  Refugee  Council,  European  Council on  Refugees  and  Exiles  (ECRE),  European Evangelical  Alliance, 
GSP Platform, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), International Federation 
of ACAT (FIACAT), Migration Policy Group, Terre des hommes Deutschland e.V., Quaker Council for European 
Affairs (QCEA) and Oxfam. 
104 ActionAid  International, AGDDS, Amnesty  International, Asociación  Rumiñahui,  Bedsteforældre  for Asyl, 
Brot  für  die  Welt,  CARE  Denmark,  Caritas  Europa,  CCFD-Terre  Solidaire,  Centre  for  Peace  Studies,  CGIL, 
Christian  Council  of  Norway,  Churches’  Commission  for  Migrants  in  Europe  (CCME),  Ciré,  CNCD-11.11.11 
(BE), Danish Refugee Council, Danish United Nations Association / FN-forbundet, Dutch Council for Refugees, 
Ellebæk Kontaktnetværk / Ellekbaek Contactnetwork, EuroMed Rights, Europe Cares e.V., European Network on 
Statelessness, Federation of Protestant Churches in Italy (FCEI), Finnish Refugee Advice Centre, Finnish Refugee 
Council, Fundacja Inicjatywa Dom Otwarty, Grandparents for Asylum, Kongelunden, Greek Council for Refugees 
(GCR), Human Rights Legal Project, Human Rights Watch, International Rescue Committee, Irídia - Centre for 
the Defence of Human Rights, JRS Europe, Lysfest for Humanisme, Migration Consortium, MISSION LIFELINE 
International e.V., Movement for Peace (MPDL), Novact, Oxfam EU, r42-SailAndRescue, Red Acoge, Refugees 
International, Refugees Welcome – Denmark, RESQSHIP, Right to Protection, SOLIDAR, and SOS Humanity. 

48 

 
 
 
-  Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), Remarks with regard to the 
upcoming Commission new proposal for a Return Directive, December 2024. 

-  Finding Agreement in Return (FAiR), Improved Return Monitoring Guidelines, 20 

December 2024. 

-  Protestant Church in Germany, Letter on New common approach on returns – 

Independent return monitoring mechanism, 21 January 2025. 

-  Danish Refugee Council (DRC), Ensuring safe and dignified return of asylum seekers, 23 

January 2025. 

-  Amnesty International, Key considerations in the context of the upcoming revision to the 

EU legislative framework on returns, 23 January 2025. 

-  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Key considerations for the 

return of rejected asylum seekers, 29 January 2025. 

-  Migration Policy Institute (MPI Europe), No One-Size-Fits-All: Outreach and 

Counselling for Irregular Migrants, January 2025. 

-  Swedish Red Cross, Report on Children in immigration detention. 

-  Swedish Red Cross, Diversion from Immigration Detention: A Study on Alternatives to 

Detention and the Effects of Deprivation of Liberty.  

- 

International Detention Coalition (IDC), Tech and ATD: The use of digital technologies in 
Alternatives to Detention, 2025. 

-  Convive Fundación Cepaim, Europe Consultation on digital tech in alternatives to 

immigration detention (ATD), 2025. 

49 

 
 
 
Annex II – EMN meetings, informs and studies 

Meetings 

-  22nd REG Plenary Meeting (Copenhagen, Denmark), 25th and 26th February 2019. 

-  Workshop on the development of an EU Framework on return counselling, 24th April 

2019. 

-  Workshop on the development of an EU Framework on return counselling, 16th May 

2019. 

-  23rd REG Plenary Meeting (Helsinki, Finland), 11th and 12th June 2019. 

-  Workshop on the development of an EU Framework on return counselling, 11th and 

12th July 2019. 

-  24th REG Plenary Meeting (Vienna, Austria), 24th September 2019. 

-  25th REG Plenary Meeting (Oslo, Norway), 6th and 7th February 2020. 

-  2nd Expert workshop on Representatives of Detention Centres (Luxembourg), 28th 

February 2020. 

-  Advanced workshop on ‘Information Management on the Application of the Principle 

of Non-Refoulement in Asylum and Return Procedures’, 4th March 2020. 

-  26th REG Plenary Meeting (Online), 11th June 2020. 

-  Workshop on Data Protection in the field of return, 1st July 2020. 

-  Workshop to validate the final text of the EU framework on return counselling, 22nd 

September 2020. 

-  Workshop on ‘Effective Elements of reintegration’, 22nd and 23rd September 2020. 

-  27th REG Plenary Meeting (Online), 5th and 6th November 2020. 

-  Webinar on ‘Alternatives to detention: A state of play’, 15th December 2020. 

-  28th REG Plenary Meeting (Online), 10th February 2021. 

-  Thematic expert group on RIAT, 21st April 2021. 

-  Thematic expert workshop on implementation of data protection regulation in 

international data transfers, 19th May 2021. 

-  29th REG Plenary Meeting (Online), 21st June 2021. 

-  Thematic expert workshop on returning vulnerable persons, 6th July 2021. 

-  Thematic expert workshop on return of unaccompanied children, 13th September 

2021. 

-  Thematic expert workshop on return of families with children, 14th September 2021. 

-  Thematic expert workshop on return of victims of trafficking, 12th October 2021. 

50 

 
 
-  Thematic expert workshop on return of migrants with medical conditions, 13th 

October 2021. 

-  30th REG Plenary Meeting (Online), 26th and 27th October 2021. 

-  31st REG Plenary Meeting (Online), 15th and 16th February 2022. 

-  32nd REG Plenary Meeting (Brussels, Belgium), 28th and 29th June 2022. 

-  EMN-REG: 4th thematic workshop on Directors of detention centres (hosted by EMN 

LU), 27th and 28th September. 

-  EMN-REG Workshop: Cooperation with third countries on return procedures 

(Norway), 27th and 28th October 2022. 

-  EMN-REG: thematic workshop on return of vulnerable groups: individuals with 

medical conditions (Hosted by EMN NL), 10th and 11th November 2022. 

-  33rd REG Plenary meeting (Brussels, Belgium), 15th December 2022. 

-  34th REG Plenary meeting (Bratislava, Slovakia),1st February 2023. 

-  EMN-REG-Frontex workshop on return and reintegration counselling (Sweden), 4th 

April 2022. 

-  EMN-REG expert workshop on Effective Alternatives to Detention (Cyprus), 13th and 

14th June 2023. 

-  35th REG Plenary meeting (Online), 22nd June 2023. 

-  5th Workshop of Representatives of Detention Centres, 20th and 21st September 2023. 

-  36th REG Plenary meeting (Tallinn, Estonia), 7th and 8th November 2023. 

-  EMN-REG workshop on cooperation with third countries in return (Norway), 23rd and 

24th November 2023. 

-  EMN-REG workshop on multistakeholder governance (Belgium), 5th and 6th 

December 2023. 

-  37th REG Plenary meeting (Paris, France), 27th and 28th February 2024. 

-  EMN-REG-Prague process workshop on the value of return and reintegration support 

(Larnaca, Cyprus), 18th and 19th June 2024. 

-  38th REG Plenary meeting (online), 18th July 2024. 

-  6th Workshop of Representatives of Detention Centres, 25th and 26th September 2024. 

-  EMN-REG workshop on Reintegration, referrals and reintegration systems in third 

countries (an EU-perspective) (Oslo, Norway), 7th and 8th November 2024. 

-  39th REG Plenary meeting (online), 10th December 2024. 

-  EMN-REG workshop on RIAT (Brussels, Belgium), 12th December 2024. 

-  EMN-REG workshop on Return centers (online), 19th December 2024. 

51 

 
 
-  EMN-REG workshop on Return counselling approaches for migrants with 

psychosocial issues (online), 19th December 2024. 

REG Inform (or equivalent analytical output) 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), The Effectiveness of Return in EU Member 

States, 2018. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Inform on Policies and Practices on Return 

Counselling for Migrants in EU Member States and Norway, 2019. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Inform on Policies and Practices for the 

Support of Return Counsellors in Their Role to Provide Migrants with Timely and 
Reliable Information on Return, 2020. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Inform on Policies and Practices of Outreach 
and Information Provision for the (Voluntary) Return of Migrants in EU Member 
States and Norway, 2020. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Inform on Overview: Incentives to Return to a 
Third Country and Support Provided to Migrants for Their Reintegration, 2020. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Inform on the Impact of the COVID-19 

Pandemic on Voluntary and Forced Return Procedures and Policy Responses, 2021. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Umbrella, Inform on Impacts of COVID-19, 

Also Covering Return, 2021. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Responses to long-term irregularly staying 

migrants: practices and challenges, 2021. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Study on Detention and Alternatives to 

Detention in International Protection and Return Procedures, 2021. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Bilateral Readmission Agreements, 2022. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Study on Detention and Alternatives to 

Detention in International Protection and Return Procedures, 2022. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Incentives and motives for voluntary departure, 

2022. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Migration and development cooperation, 2024. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Inform on (Comparative Analysis on the 
Implementation of) Coherent Return and Reintegration Assistance, 2024. 

-  European Migration Network (EMN), Migration diplomacy: An analysis of policy 

approaches and instruments, 2024.  

-  Non-binding compilation paper for policy-makers and practitioners on select data 
protection aspects to take into account in return-related issues, May 2021/January 
2022. 

52 

 
 
 
-  Mapping document on Member States approaches to assess and address 

vulnerabilities in return procedures, May 2021/January 2022. 

-  Overview of return and reintegration counselling practices in Member States (Draft), 

December 2024. 

Ad hoc queries (AHQs, launched by COM) 

-  Overview of AVRR assistance for Tunisia (REG), February 2019. 

(sensitive/restricted) 

-  REG AHQ: Policies and practices on return counselling for migrants in EU Member 

States, March 2019.  

-  REG Ad-Hoc Query on policies and practices for the support of return counsellors in 
their role to provide migrants with timely and reliable information on return, May 
2019.  

-  Challenges and good approaches on (access to) consular services related to return of 

third-country nationals, October 2019. (sensitive/restricted) 

-  The policies and practices on outreach and information provision for the return of 

migrants in EU Member States and Norway, October 2019.  

- 

Inform #5 - impact of covid-19 pandemic on voluntary and forced return procedures 
and policy responses in EU member states, Norway and Switzerland, August 2020. 
(sensitive/restricted) 

-  Umbrella Inform – Covid-19 and Return – (Part 1) (REG Practitioners and NCPs), 

December 2020. (sensitive/restricted) 

- 

Inventory of external IT systems containing reintegration case data (Part I & II), 
March 2021. 

-  AHQ on Returning Criminal Offenders (REG Practitioners, restricted), May 2021. 

(sensitive/restricted) 

- 

(AHQ for EMN inform on) Bilateral readmission agreements: inventory, 
characteristics and effectiveness (part 1 and part 2), August 2021. 

-  Cooperation with consular authorities of third countries in readmission procedures, 

May 2022. 

-  Cooperation with consular authorities of third countries in readmission procedures - 

Part 2, May 2022. 

-  Use of the European Travel Document (EUTD) in return and readmission procedures, 
September 2022. (sensitive/restricted) Returning individuals with medical conditions, 
October 2022. (sensitive/restricted) Policies and practices on return and reintegration 
counselling for migrants in EU+, February 2023. 

- 

Implementation of Coherent Return and Reintegration Assistance, October 2023. 

53 

 
 
 
-  Multistakeholder governance towards case resolution or holistic orientation of 

undocumented migrants: Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches, 
October 2023. 

-  Link between asylum and return procedures and last-minute asylum applications 

(LMAs), February 2024. (sensitive/restricted) 

-  Conditions and practice of mutual recognition of return decisions in EU Member 

States, September 2024. (sensitive/restricted) 

-  Return counselling approaches for migrants with psycho-social needs, November 

2024. 

-  Return Centres, November 2024. (sensitive/restricted) 

54