What is the new EU return regulation?
It’s a proposed legislative framework, set to replace the national policies of EU member states with a Common European System for Returns of non-EU nationals who have received a return decision in one of the EU member states. The proposal is part of a broader legislative reform and builds upon the Pact on Migration and Asylum passed in 2024 and coming into force in June 2026, defining the procedures applied to asylum seekers and migrants across the European Union. The new EU Return Regulation, which would be binding on member states, repeals Directive 2008/115/EC (commonly known as the Return Directive).
What are its main provisions and what concerns do they raise about fundamental rights?
The new rules provide for stricter measures aiming to increase and speed up the return/deportation out of the EU. It affects “third-country nationals who do not, or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the member states”, which includes rejected asylum seekers, vulnerable people, and families with children.
While the declared goal of the new rules is to “bring clarity and give member states tools and the necessary legal basis to make returns more efficient while fully respecting fundamental rights”, the proposed legislation raises many questions and warrants concerns that the prioritization of swiftness and simplicity will come at the expense of fundamental rights- the right to liberty and security, the right to seek asylum, the prohibition of refoulment, the prohibition of collective expulsion, the rights of the child, the right to respect for private and family life and home, the prohibition of discrimination, etc.- guaranteed by European and international acts and treaties like the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the 1951 Refugee Convention, the UN Convention Against Torture, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc. International bodies and human rights organizations, like the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, as well as independent human rights experts, express great concern that the new measures are punitive and restrictive, the result of rushed negotiations excluding the civil society and having little consideration of due process, international legal standards, and human rights safeguards.
Main issues with the regulation’s human rights compliance:
- Detention
The regulation vastly expands the use of detention- its grounds and length– effectively promoting and normalizing its systemic use, as opposed to leaving it as a measure of last resort or imposed for the shortest possible time. The maximum detention period for migrants waiting to be returned would be increased from 18 months (under the current Return Directive) to two years, with an unlimited duration for people designated as security risk.
Children are not excluded from the application of administrative detention for the purpose of preparing a return to their country of origin or removal to a third country, with the process maintained for the “shortest appropriate period”. The fact that the detention of unaccompanied minors is to be reviewed ex officio at regular intervals and at least every three months means that unaccompanied minors can be detained for a minimum of three months.
The harmful effects of detention go beyond the negative mental health impact; detention severely limits options for legal, medical, and psychological aid. The possibility of detaining children is especially alarming. UN experts warn that “detention of migrant and asylum-seeking children because of their or their parents’ migration status is never in the best interest of a child and always a violation of children’s rights” and state that detaining adult migrants and asylum seekers should not become a practice: “Asylum seekers should not be penalized for exercising the right to seek asylum, and migration should not be criminalized”.
However, some of the regulation’s rules directly point to criminalization, such as the provision for detention in prisons (“Prison accommodation may be resorted to when a Member State cannot provide for such facility keeping the third-country nationals separate from ordinary prisoners “). The regulation foresees that third-country nationals posing a security risk may also be “detained in prisons and, where possible, be kept separated from ordinary prisoners”. The Council’s proposal goes even further and drops the words “and be kept separated from ordinary prisoners”.
- “Security risks” include broad grounds, such as threat to “public policy”, “public security”, “national security”
This vague wording opens the door to arbitrary use of detention and lifelong entry bans. The obscurity of the term “threat to public policy” gives states broad discretionary authority to designate someone as threat in violation of their fundamental rights. It is reminiscent of the controversial “threat to foreign policy” justification for detainment and threatened deportation, which has been used in the US, drawing condemnation for violating the right to free speech and for silencing critical voices.
- “Detection” and “investigations”:
National authorities will be required to “put in place efficient and proportionate measures to detect third-country nationals who are staying illegally on their territory” and will be allowed to raid “places of residence or other relevant premises” and to seize their personal belongings, including electronic devices.
This part of the proposal has drawn a lot of criticism for similarities to the intrusive surveillance and aggressive detention tactics of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The provision gives national authorities, such as the police force, broad discretion to use invasive measures that do not require the person’s consent or even a judicial order. It exposes people of color to racial profiling and discrimination. It puts asylum seekers and migrants in an especially vulnerable position, as fear of authorities would prevent them from seeking healthcare, education, employment, or protection, including in emergency situations, in cases of abuse, violence, exploitation, unsafe conditions, and other violations of their rights. In response to these rules, The Standing Committee of European Doctors (CPME) issued a statement condemning “any political or judicial action which undermines medical ethics and patients’ fundamental right to health”.
- Mutual recognition of return decisions across member states, using a European Return Order available in shared databases:
This provision, particularly in relation to fast-track border procedures limiting the capacity to appeal, erases individual assessments of vulnerabilities and protection needs and creates the risk of collective expulsions and violation of the prohibition of non-refoulement.
- “Return hubs” in third countries based on agreements/arrangements concluded bilaterally or at EU level:
Such external processing sends people to third countries, which can be unrelated to their origin, which they may have no connection to or protection in. While the regulation declares a requirement for said third countries to respect international human rights standards and principles in accordance with international law, including the principle of non-refoulement, the proposal does not provide for individual assessment of protection needs prior to the transfer and there are no concrete mechanisms in place to guarantee transparency and effective independent monitoring of human rights compliance. In fact, as Amnesty International points out, historically, such arrangements have generally been implemented through partnerships with states that “do not uphold human rights and that often lack adequate monitoring in addition to evading public parliamentary and judicial oversight. Refugee protection and the expansion of safe pathways, by contrast, typically represent a secondary or minimal part of these agreements”.
- Removing the automatic suspensive effect of appeals:
Under the previous 2008 Return Directive, an appeal of a return decision allowed the applicant to remain in the host country pending the court’s decision. Under the new rules, however, they would need to submit an application to suspend the enforcement of a return order, alongside the appeal. National judicial authorities will decide on a case-by-case basis whether to suspend enforcement in cases of non-refoulement breach risks. Courts will generally decide on suspension requests within 48 hours. This procedure and timeframe accelerate the deportation process and severely restrict access to legal assistance and preparation.
- De-prioritization of voluntary departure:
The proposal introduces broad grounds for mandatory returns and removes the current minimum period of seven days for “voluntary” departure, thus shifting the priority from “voluntary” (though still mandatory) departure/return to forced return/deportation as the default option.
- Lack of alternatives to detention, such as community placement.
Instead, “alternative” measures, such as electronic monitoring, are provided for- another indication that the new EU migration policies and procedures are leaning into heavy surveillance and criminalization of people on the move.
- A broad obligation for cooperation and punitive sanctions for “non-compliance”,
including financial and criminal penalties, detention and entry bans, even where barriers are beyond the person’s control (such as statelessness, homelessness, inability to provide identity documents, literacy barriers, age, health, trauma, etc.).
- Extending the duration of entry bans in the EU for returned people from five to ten years,
with potential lifelong bans for individuals considered a security risk. Entry bans are also subject to mutual recognition by member states- a return decision, along with any associated entry ban issued in one member state, is mutually recognized and strictly enforced across the entire EU.
- Human rights experts express concern that the proposed Regulation would not exempt
vulnerable people (children, pregnant or nursing women, older persons, persons with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and other gender-diverse (LGBT) persons, victims of contemporary forms of slavery, victims of trafficking, victims of rape, sexual, physical or psychological violence, trauma, torture and ill-treatment, and those fleeing conflicts), from coercive measures, such as detention, forced removal, entry bans, restrictions on freedom of movement, cooperation obligations, or removal to “return hubs”. The requirement for vulnerability verification itself is problematic under the proposal, as the formulation is too vague to effectively guarantee the necessary assessments across all member states.
How far is the regulation in its progression toward adoption?
The European Commission published the proposal on 11 March 2025. The European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs presented its draft report on the Commission’s proposal on 11 November 2025. The Council of the European Union agreed on its “general approach” on 8 December 2025. The proposed regulation was approved by the European Parliament on 26 March 2026.
It is currently in the stage of inter-institutional negotiation between Parliament, Council and Commission (aka “the trilogue” stage) before final adoption.
The European Commission’s goal is to have the return regulation finalized by mid-June 2026, when the EU Pact comes into effect. If passed, the law will still require formal approval by both Parliament and member states.
When will the Return Regulations come into effect?
While the Council’s position was to postpone the implementation by two years, with the deployment of “return centres” starting immediately, the European Parliament was in favour of immediate direct implementation. On 1 June the Council and the European Parliament negotiators reached a provisional deal on the draft. The Regulation must be formally adopted by the European Parliament and the Council before it enters into force, which will happen 20 days after publication in the Official Journal of the EU. Per information shared by the European Commission, there will be an immediate entry into force of the Regulation while having some Articles applicable with a one year implementation period.
What is the civil society doing about it?
Civil society organizations were largely excluded from the discussions of the proposed regulation. However, human right defenders and NGOs resist the proposal through coordinated advocacy, legal challenges, and grassroots mobilization. Networks such as PICUM, ECRE, and Human Rights Watch have published Joint Civil Society Statements signed by dozens of EU and international NGOs, including the Center for Legal Aid- Voice in Bulgaria, urging EU lawmakers and Member States to reject punitive measures, avoid an excessive and harmful focus on return rates, restore and strengthen fundamental rights safeguards, ensure compliance with EU and international law, and prioritize dignified, safe, and sustainable return. Center for Legal Aid- Voice in Bulgaria also joins over 80 civil society organizations specifically campaigning against the “detection” and “investigations” measures in the regulation enabling home raids, policing of public services and racial profiling.
In addition, we are working on projects and campaigns scrutinizing the application of the larger legal framework of new asylum and migration procedures that the return regulation builds upon. Through independent monitoring, advocacy reports, and strategic litigation, Voice in Bulgaria works toward increasing transparency and accountability of institutions responsible for enforcing the new rules.
What can you do as a concerned EU citizen?
- Contact your Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to urge them to prioritize human rights safeguards during plenary votes and interinstitutional negotiations. You can find your representatives through the European Parliament Directory
- Engage National Ministers in The Council of the EU. You can contact your national Ministry of Justice or Interior to express opposition to specific provisions
- Organize or join campaigns, petitions, protests demanding humane policies for people on the move, rooted in compliance with international law
author : Gergana Trendafilova – Chonev, legal expert at CLA ” Voice in Bulgaria”
Sources:
Return Regulation Proposal, 11 March 2025, approved by the European Parliament on 26 March 2026
Council of the European Union “general approach”, 5 December 2025
Amnesty International
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Concerns regarding the proposed Return Regulation presented by human rights experts brought to the attention of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
