The European Parliament approves at first reading the regulation on the return/deportation of third-country nationals irregularly present in EU member states. Stricter rules and fewer guarantees

On 26 March 2026, the European Parliament approved, with some significant amendments to the Commission's draft (COM(2025)101 final), the proposed regulation on the return of third-country nationals who are irregularly staying in the territory of the European Union. The measure was passed with 389 votes in favour, 206 against and 32 abstentions, and will now face the inter-institutional process between Parliament and Council (the so-called "trilogue") before final adoption. The regulation falls within the framework of the "Pact on Migration and Asylum" adopted by the EU in 2024, whose measures will be gradually phased in from summer 2026. It aims to harmonise national return practices which, under the framework of the 2008 "Returns Directive", had proven to be fragmented and ineffective. At European level, indeed, only 20% of returns are actually carried out.

Structure and general principles. Return or deportation?

The regulation is divided into nine chapters. The first establishes that the new rules apply to third-country nationals in an irregular situation, namely those who do not meet the conditions laid down by the Schengen Code for entry into or stay in the EU. Member States may derogate from the regulation's rules in certain specific cases, such as measures against persons turned back at the border or intercepted during attempts at illegal entry, in compliance with certain minimum principles, including the principle of non-refoulement. The regulation also broadly defines the concept of "country of return", which may be not only the migrant's country of origin, but also a transit country, a country in which the migrant has the right of residence, a third country considered "safe" for the foreign asylum seeker, or a State with which the EU has concluded an agreement for the establishment of a "return hub". This expanded definition has led some civil society observers and organisations to consider that the term "deportation" would be more appropriate than "return" (return, retour, retnoro, Rückkehr…) to describe the measures provided for in the regulation, also because the so-called voluntary return is subject to such pressures and accompanied by such significant sanctions in the event of non-compliance that it becomes, in fact, compulsory. Therefore, when this text refers to return, it may be understood as deportation or expulsion.

Return decision and entry ban

Chapter II governs return procedures. The return decision must be adopted by the Member State on whose territory the irregular migrant is found and must comply with the standard format of the European return order. It is automatically enforceable in all Member States without the need for further administrative checks: this is one of the key provisions of the regulation. A return decision may be accompanied by an entry ban, which may be permanent for migrants considered a security risk, whilst in other cases the duration is assessed on a case-by-case basis. The European Parliament has introduced the possibility of revoking the entry ban should the migrant reimburse the costs borne by the State for their return — a provision that creates an evident double standard in favour of more financially affluent migrants.

Voluntary return or removal order

Once the return decision has been adopted, the migrant has a maximum period of 30 days to leave the country voluntarily. If they fail to comply, the State issues a removal order, which must necessarily indicate the State to which the migrant is to be transferred. The order may provide for coercive measures, including detention, where there is a risk of absconding or the migrant poses a security risk. Removal operations must be monitored by the State, through an independent body, to ensure compliance with human rights standards.

Special regime for "dangerous" migrants

The regulation pays particular attention to migrants considered a risk to public safety, public order or national security. Article 16 introduces a list of individuals whose dangerousness is not necessarily established, but merely presumed. This includes those for whom there are "concrete indications" of having committed serious crimes or of intending to commit them. More stringent measures are provided for such individuals: the entry ban may be permanent, the removal order must be issued as a matter of priority and its challenge has no suspensive effect, except where the principle of non-refoulement is invoked. The detention of such individuals may extend beyond the maximum period of 24 months, for an indefinite period — a particularly concerning provision that effectively amounts to a sentence without conviction.

"Return hubs". A normalisation of the "Albania model"?

One of the most significant innovations of the regulation is the possibility of transferring irregular migrants to States outside the EU, following the conclusion of agreements or arrangements with such States. Article 17 specifies that only third countries in which internationally recognised human rights are respected and in which the principle of non-refoulement applies may be partners to such agreements. These "return hubs" represent an advanced form of outsourcing immigration management, but may not be used for carrying out refugee status determination procedures or judicial guarantee proceedings. The European regulation therefore departs from the original project set out in the Italy-Albania agreements of 2023, which provided for the outsourcing of refugee status verification procedures as well. Unaccompanied foreign minors may not be transferred to these centres. Serious concerns remain regarding the effective application of international and European human rights standards on the territory of States outside the EU — concerns shared also by the European Economic and Social Committee.

Obligations of the migrant and restrictive measures

The regulation imposes numerous obligations on irregular migrants to cooperate with State authorities, including the surrender of personal documents in digital format, the prohibition on using aliases or forged documents, the provision of information on their movements and family members, and the prohibition on "physically" obstructing the execution of the return. Migrants may be searched, even without their consent, and their electronic devices may be seized. Even in the absence of specific risks of absconding, they may be subject to measures restricting freedom of movement, such as the obligation to reside in a specific geographical area or to report periodically to the authorities. In the event of non-compliance, the applicable measure becomes administrative detention.

Guarantees and remedies

Chapter IV governs the guarantees and remedies available to migrants. They have the right to be informed of the procedures concerning them and of the possibility of challenging the measures adopted against them. Free legal assistance from a qualified professional is provided for, but only upon request and subject to the migrant's financial means. The time limit for challenging decisions is set at a maximum of 14 days. The most controversial provision concerns the suspensive effect of appeals: the European Parliament has established that a challenge does not automatically suspend the execution of the return measure, leaving the decision to the discretion of the judge. This provision, combined with the very short time limits for lodging an appeal, renders the guarantees largely ineffective in practice.

Administrative detention

Administrative detention may be ordered in a number of cases, including the risk of absconding, failure to cooperate with the authorities, a threat to security, and the need to establish the migrant's identity. The risk of absconding may be presumed on the basis of a variety of behaviours and predictive assessments. The maximum duration of detention is set at 12 months, extendable by a further 12 months in certain circumstances, with the exception of dangerous migrants who may be detained for an indefinite period. Detention conditions provide for access to outdoor spaces and the possibility of contacting family members and lawyers, but States have broad discretionary powers to impose restrictions, including when faced with an increasing number of proceedings. Minors and families with minors may be detained only as a measure of last resort, but are not explicitly excluded from detention.

Readmission, inter-State cooperation and data exchange

The regulation also governs the procedure for the readmission of migrants to the destination State and provides for the possibility of drawing on Frontex's cooperation. The European Parliament has introduced an explicit link between readmission policies and EU policies on development, international trade and visas: poor cooperation by third countries in readmitting their irregular nationals could result in trade or visa restrictions. The regulation also provides for wide-ranging possibilities for Member States to exchange sensitive personal data relating to irregular migrants, including biometric data, information on criminal convictions and medical conditions, which may also be transmitted to third countries in compliance with the data protection regulation.

Final remarks

The regulation presents numerous problematic aspects from the perspective of the rights of irregular migrants. The maximum detention period of 24 months, extendable indefinitely for "dangerous" individuals, effectively amounts to a sentence without conviction. The absence of an automatic suspensive effect of judicial appeals, combined with the very short time limits for lodging them, renders the guarantees largely ineffective. Detention conditions leave broad discretionary powers to States, without adequate independent monitoring mechanisms. The outsourcing of migrant management to "return hubs" raises serious questions about the effective protection of human rights outside EU territory. Finally, the link between cooperation on readmission and diplomatic and commercial cooperation policies with third countries risks subordinating the protection of individual rights to purely geopolitical or economic considerations. Furthermore, as the European Economic and Social Committee observes in its opinion of September 2025, this "aggressive" return policy is not accompanied by equally vigorous measures to promote legal and safe migration pathways. All these aspects should be revisited in the course of the inter-institutional negotiations now opening between Parliament, the Commission and the Council. At the very least, an indication of a maximum duration of detention for "dangerous" migrants should be reintroduced, the duration of detention for others reduced to below 24 months, the suspensive effect of a judicial challenge to a removal order restored, and the exclusion of the detention measure for unaccompanied minors reinstated.