What happened
The EU Returns Regulation has triggered strong alarm from civil society, which warns that the proposed law would enforce inhumane deportation rules across Europe. On 11 March 2025, the European Commission unveiled this draft regulation to replace the 2008 Return Directive. While the Commission frames it as migration control, rights groups argue it is a dangerous step that undermines fundamental rights.
What the EU Returns Regulation Proposes?
- EU-wide return orders (ERO): a deportation order issued in one country would be valid across the EU. The Commission says this prevents “asylum shopping” and speeds enforcement. Critics say it flattens national safeguards.
- Longer detention and broader grounds: maximum immigration detention increases from 18 to 24 months, with the possibility of judge-ordered extensions for “security risk” cases. Grounds for locking people up are widened; alternatives to detention are reframed and can also be layered on after detention.
- “Detection” and control measures: states must adopt tools to locate and monitor people in return procedures (e.g., reporting duties, designated residence, financial guarantees). The suspensive effect of appeals is no longer automatic.
- Return hubs in third countries: the package opens a legal avenue for offshore “return hubs” (outside EU territory) to hold people pending removal — something the Commission frames as cooperation with non-EU partners; rights groups warn of oversight gaps and refoulement risks.
Why Civil Society Calls the Rules Inhumane?
The joint statement argues the Regulation should be rejected for nine main reasons. Here’s the essence, translated into newsroom bullets:
- Deportations to countries with no prior ties & offshore centres
People could be expelled to states they never lived in, and “return hubs” outside the EU risk automatic, arbitrary detention, chain refoulement, and unclear legal responsibility. NGOs also flag cost, diplomacy and human-rights monitoring problems, citing Australia/UK/Italy offshoring parallels. - Mandatory “detection” = more racial profiling & raids
Requiring states to actively detect irregular stay will, they say, turbo-charge racialised policing, deter healthcare-seeking and abuse reporting, and increase unsafe data-sharing — undermining trust in public services. - More people pushed into legal limbo
The draft couples negative decisions with automatic return orders, even listing multiple potential countries when one can’t be identified, while weakening protections for the non-removable (e.g., stateless people). The coalition says this swells the number of people issued orders without realistic pathways, fuelling destitution and exploitation. - Severe expansion of detention — including children
Raising the ceiling to 24 months (with further extensions for “security risk”) and expanding detention triggers (e.g., lack of documents, homelessness) is, they argue, disproportionate and harmful; detaining children violates international standards. “Alternatives” can be stacked in addition to detention. - Punitive “cooperation” rules
People face sanctions (entry bans up to 10 years, fines, loss of benefits/work permits) if judged “non-cooperative” in obtaining documents — a bar many cannot meet (statelessness, trauma, literacy, health). Forced returns become the default as voluntary departure windows shrink. - Eroded appeal rights
Appeals no longer automatically suspend removals; deadlines can be tight (up to 14 days max), making effective remedies harder in practice. - Expanded digital surveillance
Broader data-collection/sharing (including health/criminal data), SIS alerts for return orders, and use of intrusive “alternatives” (GPS, phone tracking) risk privacy violations and function as de facto detention. - No human-rights impact assessment
The coalition says the proposal skipped the Commission’s own Better Regulation playbook (impact assessment & consultations) despite major social rights implications. - Ignoring rights-based alternatives
Instead of widening regularisation routes and access to permits (humanitarian, family, work, statelessness), the draft centers on enforcement.
These criticisms echo separate assessments from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, which call the package “cruel and unrealistic” and “a new low,” warning of prolonged detention, offshore hubs, and weakened safeguards.
What’s new in the EU Returns Regulation compared to current deportation rules?
- 24-month detention (up from 18), with judge-ordered extensions in “security risk” cases.
- EU-wide enforceability of return orders (the ERO idea) instead of strictly national decisions.
- Formal pathway toward offshore return hubs via agreements with third countries.
- Appeals without automatic suspension, except where non-refoulement is at stake.
- Harder “detection/monitoring” toolkit for Member States (reporting, designated residence, financial guarantees).
Legal stakes of the EU Returns Regulation
The flashpoints are predictable: EU Charter rights (liberty, dignity, family life, child rights, effective remedy), ECHR jurisprudence on detention and remedies, and non-refoulement. Building detention-like capacity outside EU territory raises unresolved questions on jurisdiction, accountability and judicial access. Rights groups argue the package shifts migration management toward criminalisation & externalisation, away from protection & inclusion.
What comes next for the EU Returns Regulation
The Commission is pursuing this after years of pressure to raise return rates (roughly 1 in 5 return orders executed, per EU figures). The proposal is not law: it now needs Parliament and Council approval — where pushback over rights safeguards, offshoring, and detention length will dominate. Media coverage in March already flagged these battle lines.
What to watch next
- Offshore hubs: which third countries (if any) agree, on what terms, and who polices rights/compliance?
- Detention scope: how “security risk” and “flight risk” are defined; whether children/families get categorical protections in the final text.
- Appeal design: will MEPs restore automatic suspensive effect or at least minimum appeal windows?
- Data & surveillance: limits on SIS flags, cross-border data-sharing and intrusive “alternatives.”
- Regularisation/permits: whether lawmakers add clearer pathways to avoid mass “legal limbo.”
Bottom line
The Commission frames the draft as administrative efficiency and EU-wide coherence on returns. Rights groups see a structural turn toward detention, surveillance and externalisation — with especially grave risks for children, families, stateless people and anyone who cannot “cooperate” with removal. The fight now moves to Parliament and Council, where the core question is whether the EU’s return policy can be toughened without hollowing out fundamental rights — or whether this draft, as 150–200+ organisations argue, crosses that line and should be withdrawn.
