Migration: the Civil Liberties Committee adopts a reform of EU return rules 

This article is brought to you in association with the European Parliament.

On Monday, the Civil Liberties Committee adopted its position on the proposed changes to the EU’s policy on the return of non-EU nationals illegally staying in the EU.

With 41 in favour 32 against and 1 abstention, MEPs in the Civil Liberties Committee adopted their amendments to the Commission proposal to overhaul EU return procedures, presented in March 2025.

According to the draft law, a decision to return has to be issued to any non-EU national staying illegally in a member state by the competent national authorities and shall impose an obligation to leave the relevant EU member state.

Return decisions would be included in a so-called “European return order” and be made available, through the Schengen Information System, in the whole Schengen area. Any EU country will have to recognise and enforce return decisions and removal orders issued by another EU country by 1 July 2027, based on a proposal by the Commission. The EU country on whose territory the third country national is staying illegally would be responsible for ensuring their return.

MEPs insist that the present regulation shall respect essential functions of national responsibility, such as ensuring territorial integrity, maintaining law and order, and safeguarding national security.

MEPs deleted a provision in the original proposal that would have required member state governments to put in place measures to detect non-EU citizens who are staying in their country illegally.

Obligation to cooperate

Non-EU nationals subject to a return decision would be required to cooperate with the authorities and may be offered the possibility for voluntary return. For the purpose of preparing their effective and timely return, third country nationals can be detained, for example if they are not cooperating, present a risk of absconding, pose a security risk, or for any other relevant factor impeding timely removal. Grounds for detention would be laid down in national law and detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities. Detention can also be ordered for unaccompanied minors and families with children, as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period and taking into account the best interests of the child. The period of detention can be up to 24 months.

Member states can also provide alternatives to detention, including regular reporting, the obligation to reside in a designated place, a financial guarantee, or electronic monitoring.

Agreement with countries outside the EU to accept returnees

The choice of the country of return would vary depending on the returnee’s situation, taking into account the country of origin, the country through which the person transited on their way to the EU, and whether there is a safe third country. This Regulation would also allow for the possibility to return to a country that agrees to accept the person based on an agreement concluded with an EU member state or with the EU. Unaccompanied minors may not be transferred on the basis of such agreements.

Entry ban

If a third-country national has not complied with a return decision within the set time for voluntary return, or is subject to removal , or poses a security risk, they must be issued with an EU entry ban. The duration of the ban depends on the individual circumstances of a particular case and can be permanent in instances where a person is considered to pose a security risk.

Independent monitoring mechanism

MEPs support independent monitoring of the respect of fundamental rights during removal operations, also through relevant existing mechanisms.

Quote

Malik Azmani (Renew, Netherlands), rapporteur said, after the vote: “Today, the Civil Liberties Committee adopted its position. As Rapporteur, it has always been my goal to reach an efficient and workable Regulation in a timely manner. This outcome provides the basis for the next steps, and we will now move forward towards the trilogue negotiations.”

Next steps

The decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations must be endorsed by the entire Parliament before negotiations with the Council on the final shape of the law can begin.