Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – 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 - 2025/0059(COD))
Date: 2025-09-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU migration policy, foreign national, illegal migration, repatriation grant, residence permit, return migration, right of asylum, third country








C_202600033EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/33


16.1.2026






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee
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 - 2025/0059(COD))


(C/2026/33)


Rapporteur: 
José Antonio MORENO DÍAZ

Co-rapporteur: 
Cristian PÎRVULESCU






Advisors


Claudiu CRACIUN (advisor to the co-rapporteur, Group III)
Gemma PINYOL (advisor to the rapporteur, Group II)




Legislative procedure



EU Law Tracker





Referral


European Commission, 13.5.2025
Council of the European Union, 7.5.2025




Legal basis


Article 79(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




European Commission document



COM(2025) 101 final





Relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)



SDG 10 – Reduce inequality within and among countries


SDG 16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions





Section responsible


Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship




Adopted in section


3.9.2025




Adopted at plenary session


18.9.2025




Plenary session No


599




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


96/2/6




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The EESC emphasises that any EU return policy must be founded on a clear human rights-centred justification. It calls for a comprehensive impact assessment that takes into account binding obligations under international and European human rights law, including the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). These legal frameworks should guide the development, implementation and interpretation of return measures to ensure full legal compliance.












1.2.


The EESC regrets that the regulation is not embedded in a broader strategy to promote legal and safe migration pathways. Without genuine alternatives, return procedures will remain ineffective and perpetuate a model based on exclusion, surveillance and containment. The approach of the regulation favours a legalistic and security-driven perspective, rather than one concerned with the successful integration of third-country nationals (TCNs) and the benefits they can bring to EU societies and economies.












1.3.


The EESC also highlights this proposal’s lack of a robust ex ante impact assessment. As this regulation is affecting the lives of millions of people, serious research and structured consultations with specialised bodies and CSOs would have been necessary. The absence of specific analysis of its implications for vulnerable groups (such as minors, single women, victims of trafficking, or people with physical or mental illnesses) is a serious omission, contradicting the EU’s obligation to ensure a rights-based approach.












1.4.


The EESC underlines the need to establish effective, independent and transparent monitoring mechanisms to oversee compliance, including control over return practices, detention conditions and the conduct of competent authorities, in line with the recommendations of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture.












1.5.


Stressing the original EU commitment from the 1999 Tampere conclusions, the EESC reiterates that return should primarily occur on a voluntary basis. This principle must remain the cornerstone of EU return policy, with forced return considered only as a last resort when all other options are exhausted.












1.6.


The EESC calls for the inclusion of key procedural safeguards in the definitions of the proposed return regulation, such as access to legal advice, professional interpretation and the translation of official documents. Appeals no longer automatically suspend return decisions (Article 28(2-4)), risking deportation before a decision is made. The EESC also advocates a mandatory suspensive effect on first-instance appeals where non-refoulement is at stake, ensuring that individuals are not returned to harm while legal remedies are pending. In any return process – voluntary or forced – respect for legal rights must be guaranteed.












1.7.


The EESC warns that the proposal may lead to a serious erosion of migrants’ rights and undermine the rule of law. For instance, the EESC expresses serious concern over the current provisions on detention. It finds the grounds for detention (Article 29) excessively broad, and even more problematic is the vague, presumption-based definition of ‘risk of absconding’ (Article 30). It urges the EU to significantly narrow these provisions and eliminate detention for identity verification, unless absolutely necessary and for the shortest possible time. Any use of detention must fully comply with fundamental rights, particularly those related to personal liberty and dignity.












1.8.


The EESC insists on binding human rights standards to avoid returns to situations where individuals might face serious harm or rights violations. Return decisions, especially those involving transfers to third countries, must be based on individualised assessments and subject to independent judicial review. Automatic mutual recognition of return decisions between Member States must not apply where systemic human rights violations are documented in the issuing country.












1.9.


The EESC does not support returns to countries other than to the country of origin. If return is not possible to the country of origin, regardless of the reason, return procedures should be suspended. The EESC believes that so-called return hubs are against the international legal framework, especially the Geneva Convention, and affect fundamental rights such as non-refoulment, effective judicial protection and effective right to appeal.












1.10.


The EESC strongly opposes the creation or maintenance of ‘return hubs’, warning that they are incompatible with EU and international legal obligations. Additionally, the Committee recommends clarifying Member States’ requirements in relation to the obligation of third-country nationals’ to cooperate on return and readmission procedures (Article 21-23),to ensure that they are precise and proportionate. It calls for limits on data collection and physical searches and insists that sanctions must not be applied without proper procedural guarantees and due process.












1.11.


Furthermore, the EESC warns that Article 6 of the proposed regulation, which imposes detection and reporting duties, could jeopardise access to essential services and erode trust between undocumented migrants and service providers.












1.12.


The EESC considers that the regulation fails to adequately address the immigration detention of children. This practice should be eliminated, in line with the international human rights standards, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, where detention is never in the child’s best interest.












1.13.


The EESC warns that financing the return-related investments required at the EU and Member State levels through the Asylum and Migration Integration Fund (AMIF) can divert resources away from integration actions and programmes, most of which are already underfinanced at both levels. Through structured consultations with CSOs and social partners involved in the AMIF, the EESC has become acutely aware of the difficulties they already experience in maintaining programmes, staff and expertise (1).












1.14.


The EESC is concerned that, in so-called emergency situations, Article 47 permits the suspension of fundamental safeguards based on vague and undefined criteria, potentially leading to widespread violations of migrants’ rights.




2.   Explanatory notes









2.1.


In line with the comprehensive approach to EU migration policy and the Pact on Migration and Asylum adopted in 2024, the European Commission has presented a proposal for a Regulation to establish a common return system for third-country nationals in an irregular situation in the EU. This proposal aims to replace the current Return Directive (2008/115/EC) (2), as well as other fragmented provisions, with the goal of providing the EU with a modern, coherent, and operational legislative framework for return procedures.












2.2.


According to the European Commission, this new Regulation responds to the need to strengthen the effectiveness of return policies as one of the pillars of the EU migration management system. The current context – marked by geopolitical challenges, persistent migratory pressures, unauthorised secondary movements and low effective return rates – has highlighted the limitations of the existing legal framework and the fragmentation between Member States.












2.3.


The available data on returns reveal a range of systemic challenges (3). The vast majority of third-country nationals arrive to the EU in an authorised manner – the average number of first permits annually issued over the last three years (2021-2023) has been over 3,5 million. The number of irregular arrivals is, on average, more than 300 000 per year, detected by Frontex between 2022 and 2024. In the years before the COVID-19 pandemic, the average return rate stood at almost 33 %; whilst in 2023 it was 19 %, increasing to 24 % in 2024 (4). Frontex supports around 50 % of returns from Member States and provides operational support in all phases of the return and reintegration process. The Agency also established the European Union Reintegration Programme, which offers post-arrival and long-term reintegration support to both voluntary and forced returnees, assisting over 19 000 individuals from 2022 to the end of 2024.












2.4.


The European Council, in its conclusions of February and October 2024, called on the Commission to present urgent legislation to improve return procedures. In response, the new Regulation proposes to harmonise return procedures, reduce divergences between the Member States, and ensure consistency with other instruments of the Pact, such as the Asylum Procedures Regulation and the Migration Management Regulation.












2.5.


On paper, the proposal establishes a common return procedure based on clear, proportionate rules that respect fundamental rights, with direct applicability across all Member States. This new framework aims to close legal loopholes, prevent system evasion through inter-state movements, and introduce tools such as the European Return Order, mutual recognition of return decisions, and harmonised criteria for assessing flight risk and imposing coercive measures.




3.   Comments on the proposed regulation on the common return system









3.1.


The EESC takes note of the Commission’s proposal for a regulation establishing a common system for the return of third-country nationals in an irregular situation in the EU. The recognition of the need to unify procedures, reduce legal fragmentation and ensure effective return management is well noted, as it is supposed to contribute to building a more coherent, integrated and effective migration policy. The proposal represents a step forward from the 2008 Return Directive toward a more integrated and effective EU approach, and reflects the understanding that the current system of return is not working as intended.












3.2.


The EESC is assessing the intent to equip Member States with clear, common rules, which will help reduce legal uncertainty, improve cooperation, and prevent irregular migratory flows from being managed in an uncoordinated or unequal manner within the EU. It is an opportunity to have common standards and instruments, including better fundamental rights safeguards.












3.3.


The staff working document supporting the regulation is welcome, but does not replace a proper impact assessment (5). It compares three possible scenarios to advance the return agenda, which refer to maintaining the current framework or improving it with a new instrument, either a directive or a regulation. Unfortunately, the criteria used to evaluate the option have been narrowed down to a security-driven approach, emphasising the effectiveness of forced returns. The evaluation of impact on fundamental rights is formal and unconvincing.












3.4.


However, the EESC expresses concern that the proposed Regulation may reinforce a restrictive, security-driven approach that may undermine the EU’s commitments to human rights, international legality, and the centrality of the individual in migration policy. The EESC also considers that the proposal perpetuates a narrative that unacceptably equates irregular migration with threats and security risks, placing it on the same level as serious crime or terrorism.












3.5.


From the EESC’s perspective, the prevailing narrative frames return as a ‘functional obligation’ of the migration system, obscuring the structural causes of migration and failing to address the shortcomings of the EU’s reception and asylum systems.












3.6.


The EESC stresses that low return rates are not solely due to a lack of legal instruments or cooperation from migrants but are largely attributable to the absence of a genuine common migration and asylum policy, a lack of trust among Member States in the EU institutions, and the outsourcing of responsibilities to third countries.












3.7.


The EESC reiterates its previous position that the strategic weakness of the European Union’s immigration and asylum policy is its almost exclusive focus on tackling irregular situations, whether at the border or through voluntary and forced returns. It therefore again calls on the Commission to review its reference framework and effectively work towards an integrated approach to immigration and asylum policy that promotes orderly, legal and safe mobility (6).












3.8.


The EESC insists that all return procedures must fully respect the principle of non-refoulement and that forced returns must not be carried out without a rigorous individual assessment, taking into account personal risk, health conditions, family situation, and other relevant factors.












3.9.


The EESC has serious concerns regarding the measures Member States must implement to detect third-country nationals. In 2016, the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) called for ‘decoupling immigration control and enforcement from the provision of services and assurance of rights (...) and to relieve authorities whose primary responsibilities lie elsewhere (such as in the fields of education, health care, housing, social security and assistance, labour protection and justice) from interference by immigration enforcement policies and institutions’ (7). The EESC supports this call and suggests that the Commission further clarify the limits and procedural guarantees to protect fundamental rights concerning detection.












3.10.


The Regulation clarifies the grounds for forced returns. However, more procedural clarity is needed regarding concepts such as refusal to cooperate (what does that entail?) and ‘posing security risks’ (how will the risk be evaluated, by whom and to what end?).












3.11.


The EESC has concerns with regard to modifying the definition of ‘country of return’ and broadening the range of countries to which TCNs can be forcibly returned beyond their country of origin to countries where they may have previously resided, safe third countries, first countries of asylum, countries where they have the right to enter, or countries with an agreement or arrangement for return (return hubs). This is problematic as it denies the agency and preferences of the TCNs and puts them in a position where their rights and safety are threatened. They might be deported to countries with which they do not have any connections or compatibility, and in which their status is unclear and vulnerable. Furthermore, the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (8) is particularly relevant, as it requires stricter scrutiny of the concept of ‘safe third country’. The ruling stresses the need to ensure that this concept is applied according to objective and uniform criteria, with full respect for fundamental rights and the principle of non-refoulement, and to prevent its arbitrary use as an instrument of return externalisation.












3.12.


The EESC warns of the risk that readmission agreements with third countries, including so-called ‘return hubs’, may infringe fundamental rights due to insufficient guarantees and the lack of independent monitoring mechanisms. Making EU external cooperation conditional on migration control and the acceptance of returns undermines policy coherence, international solidarity, and respect for the rule of law.












3.13.


Furthermore, the EESC considers that the proposed tools – such as the European Return Order, automatic recognition mechanisms and strengthening affected individuals’ duty to cooperate – pose a concerning reduction in procedural safeguards. Simplification of procedures may result in fast-track administrative practices that fail to properly assess protection needs or personal vulnerabilities, thereby breaching the principle of non-refoulement. The imposition of uniform deadlines for appealing decisions or cooperating with the return process risks undermining effective access to legal remedies, particularly for those without free interpretation services or legal aid in detention.












3.14.


The EESC stresses that provisions on detention and flight risk must be applied with extreme caution. Detention must not become a systematic return management tool and should be used only as a last resort, following an individual and proportionate assessment. The use of broad, poorly justified ‘flight risk’ lists normalises what should remain an exceptional measure. Moreover, the 24-month detention period – applied not for criminal offences, but for mere administrative irregularity – is excessive and may violate the right to liberty. It seems that the Return Regulation treats irregular migration as a criminal matter, but without offering the procedural guarantees typical of criminal justice.












3.15.


The Member States will assess the risk of absconding – the first ground authorising the detention of returnees – using a list of criteria which, in practice, may be unclear or abused, e.g. lack of residence. Lack of residence can result from discriminatory housing and legal practices, rather than being a result of individual intent.












3.16.


The EESC welcomes the fact that Member States must establish an independent mechanism to oversee respect for fundamental rights during removal operations. Nevertheless, the EESC is also concerned that the proposal introduces new obligations for returnees (such as active cooperation with authorities), without proportionately strengthening legal safeguards or ensuring effective access to remedies, free legal representation, or psychosocial support.












3.17.


The EESC welcomes the intention to strengthen voluntary return and reintegration programmes but notes that this requires real investment and genuine cooperation with countries of origin. In this respect, the EESC points out that the return policy cannot rely solely on incentives or pressure on third countries and that cooperation must be rooted in respect for human rights, the rule of law, and sustainable development.












3.18.


Member States can vary the minimum period granted to returnees to leave voluntarily, and the maximum is determined at the EU level, which is only 30 days. Even 30 days could be too short for such a complex and demanding logistical process. Persons must simultaneously make arrangements for remaining family members, manage personal ties and work obligations, terminate housing contracts and community engagement and make preparations for the time after arrival in the country of origin.












3.19.


In conclusion, the EESC recognises the importance of advancing towards a more effective, coherent, and fair common return system. However, this goal must not be achieved at the expense of legal safeguards, access to international protection, or the EU’s human rights commitments. The EESC therefore recommends strengthening protection mechanisms, ensuring democratic oversight of return procedures, and simultaneously progressing in the creation of legal and safe migration routes to the EU.






Brussels, 18 September 2025.


The President


of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
               





(1)  See the EESC’s evaluation report on ‘
            Ex-post Evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund for the 2014-2020 programming period
            ’ adopted on 26.3.2025. Reference SOC/789-EESC-2024.

(2)  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. 9).

(3)  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, C(2025) 2911 final, p. 6-13.

(4)  Latest statistics from Statistics on Migration to Europe, DG Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission.

(5)  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, C(2025) 2911 final.

(6)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — The EU strategy on voluntary return and reintegration (COM(2021) 120 final) (
OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 86).

(7)  See ECRI general policy Recommendation no. 16 on safeguarding irregularly present migrants from discrimination adopted on 16 March 2016 available at https://rm.coe.int/ecri-general-policy-recommendation-no-16-on-safeguarding-irregularly-p/16808b5b0b.

(8)  
            https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-08/cp250103en.pdf.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/33/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)