kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2025
KOM (2025) 0101
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 16.5.2025

SWD(2025) 250 final

Addendum to 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 - COM(2025) 101 final of 11 March 2025

COMMISSION 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

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2

1.1. Legal context ................................................................................................................... 3

1.2. Operational context ......................................................................................................... 6

1.3. Evidence base................................................................................................................ 13

2. Definition of problems and challenges ................................................................................ 15

3. Objectives of an effective EU return policy ........................................................................ 21

4. Ways forward considered .................................................................................................... 23

4.1. Alternative A: Bringing improvements while working within the current framework 24

4.2. Alternative B: New legal framework (directive or regulation) introducing new tools,

streamlined rules and simplification to make return rules more efficient and put in place an

overall more harmonised common system for returns ......................................................... 25

4.3. Alternative C: New legal framework (regulation) setting out streamlined and fully

harmonised rules .................................................................................................................. 26

5. A comparative analysis of alternatives A, B and C ............................................................. 27

6. Identified way forward ......................................................................................................... 39

Annex I – Stakeholder consultations ....................................................................................... 45

Annex II – EMN meetings, informs and studies...................................................................... 50

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

1. Introduction

The safe and dignified return of third-country nationals with no right to stay in the EU is an

essential element of the integrated, sustainable and comprehensive approach to asylum and

migration that the EU is putting in place. A credible and effective policy on return is crucial for

upholding the credibility of migration and asylum policies. Despite substantial efforts at

political and operational level

, the current EU return system does not deliver. Statistics show

that only around 20% of the third-country nationals ordered to leave the Union actually do

This creates significant operational challenges for the Member States and erodes citizens’ trust

in the EU’s capacity to manage migration and to ensure the effective functioning of the

Schengen area. The European Parliament’s Spring 2024 Eurobarometer reported that less than

a quarter of respondents were satisfied with the EU’s actions to manage crises pertaining to the

handling of migration

In this context, President von der Leyen’s 2024-2029 Political Guidelines

announced the

intention to put forward a new common approach on returns, with a new legislative framework

to speed up and simplify the process. This came as a response to the European Council’s calls

for a unified, comprehensive, and effective policy on return and readmission

. In October 2024,

the European Council invited the Commission to submit a new legislative proposal on return,

as a matter of urgency

Action is needed to improve both the effectiveness of the EU’s internal return system and the

external cooperation with third countries on readmission, with the aim of creating a positive

dynamic, where there is more capacity for fast and effective returns and where Member States

can fully capitalise on the results of the EU’s external actions.

With the momentum given by the adoption and the implementation of the Pact on Migration

and Asylum

, return remains the missing piece. The implementation of the Pact will lead to a

more efficient and quicker processing of the applications for international protection. Aligning

returns to that stepped-up pace will be key to avoiding that our systems are overwhelmed and

to ensuring that third-country nationals are returned. Yet, the current return policy, based on the

2008 Return Directive, which is no longer fit for purpose, is not effective nor efficient enough

2015 Action Plan on increasing effectiveness of the EU system of returning irregular migrants; 2021

Communication on enhancing cooperation on return and readmission as part of a comprehensive EU migration

policy; 2021 EU Strategy on Voluntary Return and Reintegration; 2023 Policy document on an operational

strategy for more effective returns.

Eurostat, Enforcement of immigration legislation. Available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/explore/all/popul?lang=en&subtheme=migr.migr_man.migr_eil&displ

ay=list&sort=category&extractionId=migr_eiord1,

accessed 6 March 2025.

Eurobarometer, Survey 3272: Public Opinion in the European Union. Available at:

https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3272, accessed 20 February 2025.

European Commission, Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029. Available at:

https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en.

Conclusions of the European Council of 9 February 2023, EUCO 1/23; Conclusions of the European Council of

17 October 2024, EUCO 25/24.

Conclusions of the European Council of 17 October 2024, EUCO 25/24.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a New Pact on migration and Asylum (COM(2020) 609

final).

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

as it suffers from several challenges. The sources of those difficulties are varied and stem from

the inefficient and diverging national procedures, the lack of cooperation of the third-country

nationals and the insufficient cooperation from third countries in readmitting their own

nationals.

For those reasons, the Commission proposed on 11 March 2025 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

(hereinafter: “the proposal”). The proposal presents a

revamped legal framework that updates the return legislation of 2008, aligns it with relevant

developments in the migration field, including the Pact on Migration and Asylum, makes it fit

for today’s needs and challenges, and helps preserve the Schengen area without internal border

controls.

The proposal seeks to simplify and enhance the efficiency of the return process, while ensuring

full adherence to fundamental rights and in full compliance with international and human rights

law and international refugee law, thereby reinforcing the EU's commitment to an EU migration

policy that is fair and firm. The European Council on 20 March 2025 invited the co-legislators

to swiftly examine the recent Commission proposal on returns

This Staff Working Document provides detailed information on the context, problem definition,

objectives, alternatives considered, as well as the rationale regarding the identified way

forward.

1.1. Legal context

The current legal framework for the return of third-country nationals with no legal right to stay

in the EU is governed by Directive 2008/115/EC

, known as the

Return Directive.

It lays

down common standards and procedures to be applied in Member States for returning illegally

staying third-country nationals. Discussions in the European Parliament, dedicated expert

working groups

and with academia and stakeholders have often highlighted the limitations of

the current Return Directive, as new challenges on the ground have arisen in an increasingly

complex migration context. Mutual recognition of return decisions is governed by the

2001

Directive on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country

nationals

complemented by Council decision 2004/191/EC that aimed at organising

financial compensations between Member States when recognising each other’s return

European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on 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.

Conclusions of the European Council of 20 March 2025, EUCO 1/25.

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. 98).

Council Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion (IMEX); Contact Group - Return Directive

(E02232).

Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-

country nationals (OJ L 149, 02.06.2001, p. 34).

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

decisions

. However, currently few Member States use the possibility offered by the Directive

because of practical or legal obstacles.

The 2018

proposal to revise the Return Directive

sought to update the legal framework and

improve its efficiency. While the Council reached a partial general approach in 2019

, the

European Parliament did not reach a position, and negotiations remained at a standstill during

the last Commission’s mandate

Since the adoption of the Return Directive in 2008, the EU migration policy has progressed

significantly and return rules link closely to several legal acts managing migration and borders

in the Union. In 2019, the new

Frontex Regulation

was adopted, with the core objective of

implementing the European integrated border management at national and Union level, which

is a necessary corollary to the free movement of persons within the Schengen area. With returns

being part of the European integrated border management, the Frontex Regulation was

designed to enhance the Agency's ability to support return-related tasks.

In September 2020, the Commission presented the

Pact on Migration and Asylum

(hereinafter: “the Pact”) that aims at modernising a large part of the EU migration procedures

and setting out a more comprehensive approach to migration management. One of the key

objectives of the Pact is the establishment of a common EU system for returns that ensures

effective returns in full respect of fundamental rights and that aligns with the ambition for a

more effective overall migration management system. On 14 May 2024, the legal acts

composing the Pact were adopted. Those instruments include a

closer link between rejected

asylum

applications

and return decisions

, as well as a return border procedure set out in the

Return Border Procedure Regulation

At the same time, the legal and operational architecture sustaining the well-functioning of the

Union and the Schengen area has evolved significantly. As effective returns are a necessary

measure in an area without internal border controls, additional common tools have been put in

place through the reinforced role of EU Agencies, as well as through an update of core

Council Decision 2004/191/EC of 23 February 2004 setting out the criteria and practical arrangements for the

compensation of the financial imbalances resulting from the application of Directive 2001/40/EC on the mutual

recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals (OJ L 60, 27.2.2004, p. 55).

European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Common

Standards and Procedures in Member States for Returning Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals (Recast),

COM(2018) 634 final.

Council of the European Union, Partial General Approach on the Proposal for a Directive of the European

Parliament and of the Council on Common Standards and Procedures in Member States for Returning Illegally

Staying Third-Country Nationals (Recast), 2019.

European Parliament, Proposal for a Recast of the Return Directive, Legislative Train Schedule. Available at:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-new-era-for-european-defence-and-security/file-

proposal-for-a-recast-of-the-return-directive.

Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the

European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a New Pact on Migration and Asylum (COM(2020) 609

final).

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a

common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1349 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a return

border procedure, and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1148.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

functionalities for large-scale IT systems, such as the

Schengen Information System

and its

return alerts. As part of the

Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism,

a thematic

Schengen evaluation on return was carried out in 2024, to identify operational solutions that

enhance the effective and swift return of third-country nationals with no right to stay.

Substantial

efforts have been made to improve cooperation on readmission with third

countries.

The EU has concluded readmission agreements with 18 third countries

, which set

out clear obligations and procedures for the third-country authorities and Member States to

readmit own nationals illegally staying on their respective territories. In addition to the

readmission agreements, the EU has concluded non-binding readmission arrangements with

six third countries

, which set a framework for structured cooperation on readmission. The

Samoa Agreement,

the new Partnership Agreement with the Organisation of African,

Caribbean and Pacific States

(ACP), has introduced clear obligations on readmission with 77

third countries in these regions. Through

Article 25a of the Visa Code

, the EU has introduced

a mechanism to foster cooperation with third countries by linking visa policy with cooperation

on readmission, thus providing a first answer to the repeated calls of the European Council to

use all relevant policies and tools to increase returns. Visa measures have been proposed for

six third countries, and adopted for two, leading in most cases to progress in cooperation on

readmission. The EU's intensive engagement following the proposals for, or the adoption of,

visa measures has led, for example, to the start of regular dialogues on readmission, to

significant improvements of the quantitative indicators of cooperation (e.g. the number of

travel documents issued), and to policy changes, including the acceptance of forced returns and

charter flights, where this was previously not the case. Following the proposal and the adoption

of measures, Member States have overall increased operational engagement with the priority

third countries, including by submitting more readmission requests.

This

coherent approach by the EU and its Member States,

both on the external side with

the third countries concerned and internally, contributes to the effectiveness of the mechanism.

Incentives and leverages are also being created in other policy areas. The

Flexible Mechanism

under the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument

(NDICI)

provides for a flexible incentive-driven approach for better cooperation on migration

management, including return and readmission. The

revised Generalised Scheme of

Preferences Regulation

(GSP), proposed in 2021, sought to introduce the lack of

cooperation on readmission as one of the grounds to withdraw trade preferences from the

beneficiary countries. However, the co-legislators did not reach an agreement.

Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Georgia, Hong Kong, Macao,

Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Russia, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Ukraine.

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia and The Gambia.

Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Members

of the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States, of the other part, ST/8372/2023/REV/1.

Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a

Community Code on Visas (Visa Code).

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on applying a generalised scheme of

tariff preferences and repealing Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council,

COM(2021) 579 final.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

1.2. Operational context

Over half a billion crossings of the external borders of the EU were recorded in 2023, reaching

92% of pre-pandemic levels in 2019

. Although the vast majority of third-country nationals

arrive to the EU in an authorised manner

, the number of irregular arrivals remains high, with

on average more than 300 000 illegal border crossings per year detected by Frontex between

2022 and 2024.

Irregular migration

continues having an important impact on the return

system.

Effective implementation of returns is a challenge. In the years before the Covid-19 pandemic,

the average return rate

stood at almost 33%, pointing to an already insufficient effectiveness

of the system. After the Covid-19 pandemic, the average return rate dropped to less than 18%.

While EU efforts have been successful in slightly increasing effective returns since the

pandemic, numbers have remained low, with the return rate standing at 19% in 2023 (Figure

Figure 1:

Third-country nationals to whom a return decision was issued in the EU and third-

country nationals returned from the EU after having been issued a return decision, including

the return rate 2014–2023 (EU-27)

Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs based on Eurostat data,

extracted on 25/02/2025.

UN World Tourism Organisation, International Tourism Dashboard 2024.

For example, the average number of first permits issued over the last three years (2021-2023) has been over 3.5

million.

The return rate is understood as the number of third-country nationals returned to third countries as a percentage

of the number of third-country nationals ordered to leave, calculated on the basis of data reported by Eurostat.

Eurostat, Enforcement of immigration legislation. Available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/explore/all/popul?lang=en&subtheme=migr.migr_man.migr_eil&displ

ay=list&sort=category&extractionId=migr_eiord1,

accessed 6 March 2025.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

The number of effective returns has been on a steady increase since 2022. Based on Eurostat

figures for the first three quarters of 2024, as well as operational data covering the rest of the

year, this trend continues in 2024.

Figure 2:

Top five nationalities of third-country nationals ordered to leave, Q3 2022 – Q3

2024

Source: Eurostat,

Returns of irregular migrants - quarterly statistics - Statistics Explained

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Figure 3:

Top five nationalities of third-country nationals returned to a third country

following an order to leave, Q3 2022 – Q3 2024

Source: Eurostat,

Returns of irregular migrants - quarterly statistics - Statistics Explained

The mismatch between the top nationalities ordered to leave and the top nationalities of third-

country nationals returned to a third country underlines the difficult operational context facing

the Member States, which is characterised by an increasing number of third-country nationals

ordered to leave yet remaining in the EU. The EU has undertaken significant operational

initiatives to foster the implementation of return decisions across the EU and to support national

efforts to manage returns.

Frontex’

expanded mandate on returns

has resulted in important operational advancements.

The Agency supports around 50% of returns from Member States and provides operational

support in all phases of the return and reintegration process. In relation to identification and

readmission, Frontex supports Member States with the organisation of identification missions,

including joint missions to several Member States, and through deployment of return liaison

officers in third countries. There are currently 9 return liaison officers deployed

by Frontex,

covering a total of 14 third countries. Frontex also offers support by deploying return specialists

to Member States, including on return counselling. Between 1 December 2024 and 16 February

2025, there were 82 deployments (including rotations of return specialists between more

Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the

European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624.

Congo and Democratic Republic of Congo; Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea; Egypt; Ethiopia; Nigeria; Somalia and

Kenya; The Gambia; Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan; Vietnam; Ghana (temporary gap).

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

locations) to 14 Member States

covered by 76 return specialists (17 category 1, 36 category

2 and 23 category 3).

In relation to return operations, Frontex increased the number of returnees supported through

commercial flights from 27 901 in 2023 to 44 628 in 2024, to 123 third countries of return. In

2024, the majority were voluntary returns (Figure 4). In 2023 and 2024, Frontex supported the

organisation of 288 charter flights with more than 11 000 returnees on board each year. Most

return operations by air were monitored through the Frontex monitoring pool. The Agency also

supports Member States in improving the efficiency of their national return and reintegration

systems through gap analyses of their digital return case management systems (21 Member

States’ gap analysis had been finalised by 2024), as well as by setting up a knowledge exchange

network on return and reintegration.

Figure 4:

Number of Frontex supported forced and voluntary returns 2019–2024

Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs based on Frontex data

Frontex and the Member States have shown significant operational results based on the

Strategy on Voluntary Return and Reintegration,

published in April 2021

. This strategy

aims at increasing voluntary returns and creating a more coordinated approach among Member

States,

inter alia

by enhancing operational assistance by Frontex, improving coordination with

relevant partner countries, and enhancing return counselling services. The strategy furthermore

emphasises the importance of enhancing the link between voluntary and forced returns,

including by strengthening information provision on their rights and obligations to returnees in

the return process through counselling. As part of the strategy, Frontex has set up the

European

Cyprus, Greece, Denmark, Poland, Germany, Italy, Croatia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Portugal, France, Iceland,

Belgium, Romania.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, The EU Strategy on

Voluntary Return and Reintegration, COM/2021/120 final.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Union Reintegration Programme

, which provides post-arrival and long-term reintegration

support to both voluntary and forced returnees in over 35 non-EU countries (Figure 5). From

2022 to the end of 2024, over 19 000 persons were supported (Figure 6)

. The programme

actively enhances uptake of voluntary returns by a complementary use of counselling and

incentives to reintegration (i.e. increase in the value of the assistance provided for voluntary

returns), while Member States continue to provide reintegration support under national

programmes

. Member States and Frontex have significantly stepped up their efforts to

provide return counselling to ensure that third-country nationals can obtain correct and timely

information about the return process and Frontex has increased the efforts to provide training

Under the EU funded Return & Reintegration Facility (RRF), specific counselling methods

have been developed for vulnerable groups, i.e. persons in need of psycho-social support. In

the first half of 2024, return specialists conducted 7178 return and reintegration counselling

sessions, which resulted in 3866 declarations to return voluntarily

Figure 5:

Third countries where Frontex has set up EU Reintegration Programmes

Source: https://www.frontex.europa.eu/return-and-reintegration/reintegration-assistance/

Support includes an immediate reception package (up to EUR 205 for forced returns) for housing/transport and

cash and up to EUR 1 000 EUR of reintegration services per returnee (doubled if return is voluntary) plus

EUR 1 000 for each family member.

Based on discussions with Frontex.

Frontex,

Reintegration

Assistance.

Available

at:

https://www.frontex.europa.eu/return-and-

reintegration/reintegration-assistance,

accessed 6 March 2025.

Based on discussions with Frontex.

Frontex, Frontex Risk Analysis for 2024 – First Half, 2024. Available at:

https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/wp-

content/uploads/fer-2024-1st-half.pdf,

accessed 5 March 2025.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Figure 6:

Number of third-country nationals supported by European Union Reintegration

Programme 2022–2024

Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs based on Frontex data

As part of the Strategy on Voluntary Return and Reintegration, the Commission has worked to

improve the efficiency and harmonisation of the reintegration processes through the continued

development of the Reintegration Assistance Tool (RIAT), a digital tool that enables Member

States to provide reintegration support in third countries to returnees through communication,

monitoring and financial and administrative handling of reintegration programmes and

individual cases. The Frontex European Reintegration Program is handled in RIAT. In 2024,

RIAT was used by 1332 return counsellors and project-coordinators in Member States, up from

877 in 2023 (52% increase).

Since the appointment of the EU Return Coordinator and the establishment of the High-Level

Network for Returns (HLN) in March 2022, the HLN members have convened to discuss

returns in 16 meetings

. The

operational strategy for more effective returns

includes the

use of targeted return actions, listed in a Return Roadmap, to pool resources and implement

jointly with the Member States and Frontex measures that will result in better coordination of

internal efforts, such as planning of joint return operations by Frontex to priority third countries,

workshops on incentives for promoting voluntary returns, comprehensive decisions (linking

asylum to return), last-minute asylum applications. The EU Return Coordinator has supported

the roll-out of the SIS return alerts, fostering coherence and consistency in its use. In-depth

meetings were dedicated to the return of illegally staying third-country nationals posing a

8 in-person and 8 online.

European Commission, Policy Document, Towards an operational strategy for more effective returns,

COM/2023/45 final.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

security risk. A dedicated Staff Working Document was published by the Commission on 16

December 2024

On 7 March 2023, the renewed

Schengen Information System (SIS)

entered into operation.

On 1 January 2025, there were approximately 571 000 return alerts in the SIS. In 2024, there

were about 18 000 exit and 10 000 entry hits

at external borders and 49 000 hits on the

territory of Member States (secondary movements). The SIS is useful to assess the extent of

secondary movements and the degree of compliance with return decisions (voluntary return).

With the renewed system, alerts on return entered into SIS must also indicate whether the return

decision is issued in relation to a third-country national who poses a

threat to public policy,

to public security or to national security

(“security flag”). The Return Directive provides for

the possibility to apply stricter rules for third-country nationals posing a security risk (such as

no period for voluntary departure and a longer entry ban) and the Return Border Procedure

Regulation allows for detention of persons who pose a risk to public policy, public security or

national security. The High-Level Network for Returns chaired by the EU Return Coordinator

and the Return Directive Contact Group held discussions to identify concrete solutions to

identify and speed up the return of third-country nationals posing security risks. Member States’

practices have also been examined as part of the Schengen thematic evaluation on return.

The introduction of return alerts in the SIS has created an opportunity to enhance

the

recognition of return decisions issued by another Member State.

In 2023 the Commission

issued a Recommendation

to support Member States in using this tool to speed up and

simplify returns. Dedicated discussions and exchange of good practices have taken place in the

Return Directive Contact Group and in the Working Party on Integration, Migration and

Expulsion (IMEX) of the Council. Despite these recent initiatives, although the majority of

Member States have transposed the Directive on mutual recognition, few of them use that

possibility. Member States identify the most common obstacle as the lack of or limited

enforceability of the decision and the administrative burden.

To improve the

efficiency of readmission,

the EU supports continuous exchange of knowledge

and good practices between Member States, including via expert and practitioners’ meetings.

Operational solutions for the effective implementation of agreements and arrangements are

discussed in regular monitoring meetings with third countries. The European Return Liaison

officers provide support directly in the third country for identification and return operations,

and Frontex organises regularly identification missions to Member States. The Commission

has supported the development of digital readmission case management systems (RCMSs) with

6 third countries (Armenia, Bangladesh, Georgia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ukraine). RCMSs

translate the readmission process into digital workflows, thereby increasing its efficiency and

transparency. Despite these efforts, a significant gap remains between return orders and

European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document, On the return of illegally staying third-country

nationals posing a security threat, SWD(2024) 287 final.

The number of hits represents the number of persons detected on the territory of a Member State that did not

issue the return decision for these persons.

Commission Recommendation of 16 March 2023 on mutual recognition of return decisions and expediting

returns when implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C (2023) 1763

final.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

readmission requests. In 2023, for example, Member States issued 484 160 return decisions

but submitted only 65 402 readmission requests to third countries.

Despite these significant efforts and results at procedural and operational level, in particular in

relation to voluntary return,

the overall return rate remains around 20%.

Although Member

States have made improvements to their internal coordination, complexity and fragmentation

at legal, policy and operational levels, remains a challenge negatively affecting the

effectiveness of returns. Furthermore, limited cooperation from third-country nationals and

third countries remains an area of concern. In relation to this, improvements are also required

in addressing the

risk of absconding,

keeping people available for return procedures and

incentivising compliance and voluntary return. These and other issues remain to be addressed

to ensure that those ordered to leave are effectively returned. A further analysis and avenues

for solutions are described below.

1.3. Evidence base

The proposal is underpinned by a solid and diverse evidence base, to ensure that it is both

empirically grounded and responsive to stakeholder needs.

Key sources include:

(1) Schengen evaluations

Periodic Schengen evaluations and the thematic Schengen evaluation on returns

provide a

detailed picture of the current return system. 27 evaluations were carried out between 2019 and

2024, covering all Member States and Schengen Associated Countries fully applying the

Schengen acquis. The Commission put forward 254 recommendations to address the common

identified challenges. These evaluations identify specific issues in national law transposing the

Return Directive, providing an overview of the key challenges with the implementation of the

current Directive. The thematic Schengen evaluation on return was carried out in 2024 to

identify operational solutions that enhance the effective and swift return of third-country

nationals with no right to stay.

(2) Experts’ discussions

Discussions in the Return Directive Contact Group chaired by the Commission and gathering

Member State experts, the Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Border and Coast

Guard Agency (‘Frontex’) have since the entry into force of the Return Directive analysed the

interpretation of specific elements of the Directive. This has allowed the Commission to have

Council Regulation (EU) 2022/922 of 9 June 2022 on the establishment and operation of an evaluation and

monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis, and repealing Regulation (EU) No

1053/2013 (OJ L 160, 15.6.2022, p. 1); European Commission, Proposal for a Council Implementing Decision on

setting out recommendations addressing identified common areas for improvement resulting from the 2024

thematic Schengen evaluation ‘Bridging national gaps: towards an effective EU return system through common

solutions and innovative practices, COM (2024) 589 final.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

a clear overview of the most difficult elements when it comes to the interpretation and

application of the Return Directive

In the Council, under the steer of several Presidencies, discussions on returns have been

regularly on the agenda of respective working groups

. Exchanges on the future of the return

policy and on the views of Member States on the upcoming legislation were particularly intense

in 2024 and 2025.

The High-Level Network for Returns chaired by the EU Return Coordinator has discussed

issues of practical nature relevant for the new return legal framework.

Targeted discussions with the European Migration Forum and the Expert Group on the views

of migrants in November 2024 and January 2025 have been instrumental in shaping the

proposal, notably on safeguards in the return process. The Readmission Expert Group analyses

of the readmission process focused on the challenges in the identification process, issuance of

travel documents, organisation of return operations, use of digital tools, and the EU approach

towards specific third countries. The discussions in this context evidence a number of common

challenges, and a fragmented approach to the readmission process. Dedicated Frontex working

groups have raised operational challenges linked to both the return and readmission processes.

(3) Study on gaps and needs of EU law in the area of return

The proposal is informed by the consultations carried out within a dedicated study on “Gaps

and needs of EU law in the area of return”, commissioned by the European Commission

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs. The study, led by ICF, in collaboration

with the Migration Policy Institute (MPI Europe), the European Policy Centre (EPC), and the

Odysseus Academic Network for Legal Studies on Immigration and Asylum in Europe

(Odysseus Network), has provided high quality analysis of possible options for the new

legislative framework on return, based on targeted consultations with stakeholders through

surveys, workshops and interviews. While the study will only be concluded later in 2025, the

legislative proposal is informed by the consultation process carried out within the study.

(4) European Parliament studies and evaluations

The substitute Impact Assessment of the recast Return Directive proposal

and the Return

Directive implementation report

, both done by the European Parliament Research Centre,

have fed this analysis and the preparations of the new legislative proposal.

These discussions have been taking place two to three times a year since 2009. When the Commission presented

the proposal to recast the Return Directive in 2018, meetings were suspended for a period but resumed in 2022,

and six meetings have taken place since.

For example, the Council Working Group on Immigration, Migration and Expulsion has held dedicated

discussions more than 50 times since the adoption of the current directive.

European Parliamentary Research Service, The proposed Return Directive (recast), Substitute Impact

Assessment,

EPRS

Study,

February

2019.

Available

at:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/631727/EPRS_STU(2019)631727_EN.pdf.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/631727/EPRS_STU(2019)631727_EN.pdf

European Parliamentary Research Service, The Return Directive 2008/115/EC, European Implementation

Assessment,

EPRS

Study,

June

2020.

Available

at:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/642840/EPRS_STU(2020)642840_EN.pdf.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/642840/EPRS_STU(2020)642840_EN.pdf

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

(5) Stakeholder consultation

The legislative proposal has been informed by consultations with a broad range of stakeholders,

including Member States, European institutions, international organisations, non-governmental

organisations (NGOs), civil society, research entities, and third countries. The consultations

occurred at political, strategic, and technical level, to ensure that the realities and needs of all

relevant actors would be considered. Stakeholders have shared with the Commission relevant

resources and targeted input, listed in

Annex I.

(6) EMN-REG resources

The Commission maintains regular consultations with Member States, Frontex, international

organisations and NGOs through the European Migration Network Return Expert Group

(EMN-REG)

. The ongoing work of EMN-REG has provided a valuable practical evidence

base through 50 meetings (18 plenary, 32 thematic), 23 ad-hoc queries and 18 published

informs / studies in the 2019-2024 period. These exchanges at practitioners’ level ensure that

the legislative proposal is grounded in real-world experience and that procedural and

operational needs of Member States are addressed.

Annex II

contains a list of EMN meetings,

informs and studies which served as background to inform the elaboration of the proposal.

(7) EU funded research

The proposal has been informed by EU-funded (ongoing) research projects in the field of return

and irregular migration, in particular: “Measuring Irregular Migration (MIrreM)” on irregular

migration in general and “De-centring the Study of Migrant Returns and Readmission Policies

in Europe and Beyond (GAPS)”, “Motivations, experiences and consequences of returns and

readmissions policy: revealing and developing effective alternatives (MORE)” and “Finding

Agreement in Return (FAIR)” on return, reintegration and readmission. These research projects

bringing together academia, civil society, governments and international organisations have

looked into, among others, barriers/enablers to international cooperation on return,

motivations, experiences and consequences of return and readmission policy and human rights

aspects in voluntary and forced return

2. Definition of problems and challenges

At present,

only around 20% of third-country nationals ordered to leave the territory of

the Member States return.

Whilst acknowledging the limitations of the return rate as a

measure of effectiveness, this rate remains too low. Persons ordered to leave can mislead the

authorities, moving on to other Member States as well as through purposely delaying and

frustrating return procedures. Third-country nationals remaining in the Union despite a return

decision who pose a threat to public security or national security require particular attention.

Overall, the current system is not working well enough, which has an overall impact on the

European Commission, Expert Groups – Networking on legal migration, irregular migration and return.

Available at:

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/european-migration-network-emn/expert-groups_en.

Irregular Migration Platform. Available at:

https://irregularmigration.eu/,

accessed 20 February 2025; Return

Migration Platform. Available at:

https://www.returnmigration.eu/about,

accessed 20 February 2025; MORE

Project Horizon. Available at:

https://www.moreproject-horizon.eu/,

accessed 20 February 2025; FAIR-Return.

Available at:

https://fair-return.org/,

accessed 20 February 2025.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

efficiency of the migration management in the Union. This can undermine the implementation

of the Pact, which foresees an efficient EU return system for the comprehensive migration

management system to work. This erosion can lead to a loss of trust in the international

protection framework, as the low number of effective returns questions the effectiveness and

fairness of current asylum and migration policies.

Several interconnected problems undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of current return

and readmission procedures:

(1) Complexity and fragmentation of the return process

Despite the significant efforts to clarify the current rules and support better and more effective

implementation, including with guidance

, discussions and exchanges of best practices in

expert groups

, the complexity of the return process remains a challenge, as evidenced by the

stakeholders during the consultations process. A high number of actors, authorities and

stakeholders are involved. The absence of strategic planning prevents Member States from

comprehensively streamlining national procedures, working on priorities and making the best

use of the (limited) available resources

Member States report, in that context, complex national legal frameworks and protracted

administrative proceedings

. The complexity is also linked to the need to take into account

extensive jurisprudence when applying the return rules. Sixty-six judgments on the Return

Directive have been rendered by the European Court of Justice since its entry into force.

This is compounded by the fact that in many Member States voluntary and forced return are

dealt with by different authorities, and communication, information-sharing and coordination

is not always optimal and streamlined

. This enhances the possibilities for third-country

nationals to frustrate return procedures through administrative and legal proceedings.

Schengen evaluations in the field of return have indicated that Member States have persistent

deficiencies when it comes to the effective enforcement of return decisions. Divergences

between Member States’ practices include how and when return-related decisions are issued to

illegally staying third-country nationals and a lack of common format and content of the return-

related decisions, with some Member States providing details in fact and in law, while others

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/2338 of 16 November 2017 establishing a common ‘Return

Handbook’ to be used by Member States' competent authorities when carrying out return-related tasks,

C/2017/6505; Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/432 of 7 March 2017 on making returns more effective

when implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C/2017/1600;

Commission Recommendation of 16 March 2023 on mutual recognition of return decisions and expediting returns

when implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C/2023/1763.

Council Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion (IMEX); Contact Group - Return Directive

(E02232).

European Commission, Schengen thematic evaluation report - Bridging national gaps: towards an effective EU

return system. Available at:

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/schengen-thematic-evaluation-report-bridging-

national-gaps-towards-effective-eu-return-system_en.

European Commission, Schengen thematic evaluation report - Bridging national gaps: towards an effective EU

return system. Available at: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/schengen-thematic-evaluation-report-bridging-

national-gaps-towards-effective-eu-return-system_en.

About half of the Member States have separate authorities dealing with voluntary and forced return.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

implementing a minimalistic approach which, among others, creates divergences as to how

non-refoulement is assessed.

The lack of effective communication between the relevant authorities further complicates the

functioning of the system, both inside each Member State and between Member States in case

of secondary movements. A significant complication also relates to the limited use of case

management systems in Member States as well as ineffective and incoherent use of (EU)

databases, meaning that one person may have multiple digital files. This lack of communication

and coordination can hamper the seamless and effective follow-up between the asylum, return

and readmission processes and leads to inefficiency and ineffectiveness of return procedures.

The current system lacks coherence and alignment with the developments that have occurred

since the adoption of the Return Directive in 2008, notably with the legal acts composing the

Pact which were adopted in 2024. Most legal acts of the Pact are regulations, leading to more

streamlining and harmonisation of Member States’ procedures. In general, the Pact legislation

reinforces the obligations of third-country nationals to cooperate with the authorities, includes

provisions on how to handle third-country nationals posing a security risk as well as how to

handle minors in the migration process. These are points on which alignment across the various

migration processes are useful for a more streamlined and efficient approach.

The complexity of the process makes it hard for some Member States to have recourse to the

recognition and enforcement of return decisions issued by other Member States. In many cases,

the procedures that the third-country national was subject to in the issuing Member State are

considered too materially different from those of the Member State that would potentially

recognise the decision, and there is lack of clarity on how to efficiently enforce a decision

issued by another Member State. This means that in practice many Member States start the

return procedure from scratch even if the third-country national had already been issued a return

decision by another Member State. This is not efficient and opens the possibility to delay the

process by moving between Member States and can foster secondary movements.

(2) Insufficient cooperation of third-country nationals

An important element hindering effective returns is the lack of cooperation from third-country

nationals. Returning an uncooperative third-country national, who for example does not show

up for the different phases of the return procedure, does not provide all the information and

documents necessary to facilitate the confirmation of nationality and the issuance of travel

documents and obstructs the return operation, is extremely challenging. The EU return

legislation currently does not contain any obligation for third-country nationals to cooperate in

the return procedure; such an obligation is however included in relation to applicants for

international protection in the asylum legislation adopted with the Pact

. Provisions on the

obligation to cooperate were included in the Commission proposal for the recast Return

Directive. Some Member States have provided for the obligation to cooperate in their national

legislation

. Hence, third-country nationals can be subject to different obligations and eligible

See, e.g., Article 9 of the Asylum Procedure Regulation, as well as similar provisions in the Qualification

Regulation.

The stakeholder consultations carried out in the context of the study on gaps and needs of EU law in the area of

return showed that more than 10 Member States have an obligation to cooperate at national level.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

for different incentives based on the Member State issuing the return decision. This can lead to

a distortive effect and cause secondary movements.

(3) Inability to ensure the availability of illegally staying third-country nationals

and absconding

Third-country nationals illegally present in the EU may not have been detected following an

irregular border crossing or may abscond after receiving a return decision

. Reliable data on

absconding at EU level is not available. Some Member States estimate it at around 30%

. An

estimated 261 700 secondary movements were detected in the EU in 2024, based on Eurodac

foreign hits (523 367), which is a 11% decrease compared to 2023 (584 936 Eurodac foreign

hits, corresponding to an estimated 292 500 secondary movements) and a 18% increase

compared to 2022 (443 116 Eurodac foreign hits, corresponding to an estimated 221 600

secondary movements)

. The Schengen Information System, as well as the Entry-Exit System

and revised Eurodac system, will in time provide more comprehensive data.

Absconding, including by moving to another Member State, represents a significant challenge

in the framework of return, as it complicates the management of cases and creates constraints

in the allocation of resources. Absconding also leads to an increased administrative workload,

as the Member State authorities need to spend time to locate the person to understand if the

person is still in their Member State, to uncertainties and challenges in planning, identification

and return operations, with significant material and organisational costs, and can raise security

risks

. A proper assessment of the risk of absconding makes it possible to identify measures

best suited to respond to the risk and prevent it, leading to a follow-up of return decisions.

Schengen evaluations show that the elements taken into account by the national authorities for

assessing the risk of absconding vary, leading to an inconsistent approach to detention. It is

important that return alerts in the Schengen Information System are used in full, as this will

help assessing if a person is likely to abscond again, for example by verifying if the person

already absconded in another Member State. However, currently there are still gaps in the

completeness and timeliness of the data.

Detention is a necessary tool to facilitate returns. When there is a risk of absconding, Member

States may be required to detain migrants during the full length of sometimes protracted return

and readmission procedures. Detention should be proportionate, imposed when necessary, and

take into account the time necessary to prepare the return, in respect of fundamental rights.

Through operational exchanges, the Commission understands that the current maximum

duration of detention as implemented in national frameworks is not always sufficient in practice

for the necessary procedures to be carried out, particularly for the most complex cases.

European Commission, EMN Study on Responses to Long-Term Irregularly Staying Migrants: Practices and

Challenges in EU Member States and Norway, 2020. Available at:

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/whats-

new/publications/emn-study-provides-overview-policies-and-practices-member-states-and-norway-regarding-

third-country_en.

Evidence-based approach to underpin the legislative initiatives under the Pact on Migration and Asylum.

Source: eu-LISA.

Frontex, Good Practices on Alternatives to Detention in Return Procedures (European Border and Coast Guard

Agency, 2021); EMN, The Effectiveness of Return in EU Member States, 2018. Available at:

https://emn.ie/publications/the-effectiveness-of-return-in-eu-member-states-emn-synthesis-report/.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Moreover, there is an important challenge with detention capacity in many Member States

putting a strain on the system. The duration of procedures for identification and issuance of

travel documents can be lengthy, even when shorter timeframes are set in readmission

instruments, as timeframes are often not respected by the third countries’ authorities.

Furthermore, return procedures can also take substantial time, including due to administrative

and judicial appeals

, procedural steps, non-cooperation by the third-country national or the

third country.

The Commission, the Agencies, the European Parliament and the Member States have been

working together with civil society to increase the effectiveness, availability and use of

alternatives to detention. The work has been carried out with a view to ensuring the overall

efficiency of the Member States’ return systems where administrative immigration detention is

applied when it proves necessary and proportionate and in full respect of returnees’

fundamental rights.

(4) Limited uptake of voluntary return and effectiveness of forced return

While there have been some improvements in the last years, the number of voluntary returns

could be increased. Member States report that the uptake of Assisted Voluntary Return and

Reintegration programmes remains limited and that returnees who apply may also abscond

before returning

. A significant number of Member States (15) consider the risk of absconding

one of the main challenges linked to voluntary return. The uptake of voluntary returns depends

on many factors, including the credibility of the removal option, the available incentives and

the consequences in case of non-cooperation. In some cases, third-country nationals who do

not cooperate on their voluntary return are not swiftly channelled to a forced return trajectory

and abscond. In many Member States, the opportunity to return voluntarily within the 30-day

period is granted to most returnees; however, instead of leaving, the Commission understands

from operational exchanges with national authorities that this in some cases results in

absconding and difficulties in following up with forced return when voluntary return is not

respected. The lack of clearly defined rules on when a person should be subject to forced return

hampers the overall effectiveness of the system. One of the reasons behind this is the fact that

in some Member States authorities dealing with voluntary and forced return are separate, and

communication is not always streamlined. Lack of clear and consistent follow-up with forced

return reduces incentives of third-country nationals to cooperate and return voluntarily, as there

is no clear prospect of forced return. The existence of these loopholes facilitates absconding

and hampers returns.

(5) Return of persons posing a security risk

Managing and prioritising the return of persons posing a security risk is an issue commonly

flagged by Member States, particularly in view of the public debate following cases where

third-country nationals with a return decision conducted acts of terrorism, touching on internal

EMN 2017, the effectiveness of return in EU Member States.

Workshop on Comprehensive Decisions and Last-minute Asylum applications,

22 October 2024.

Expert discussions in the Council Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion (IMEX).

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

security considerations

. Sharing information and carrying out security checks related to

security risks is essential and can be implemented by making full use of existing tools,

including the SIS return alerts and other relevant databases. However, despite the creation of

the security flag feature in SIS, the quality of the statistical picture is still limited. The

information needed for identifying and assessing a potential security risk can be difficult to

obtain, due to the number of authorities involved, often including security services, police and

migration authorities, having access to different levels of information

The management of those return cases can be improved. The absence of a specific separate

ground for detention in cases where a person poses a security risk further complicates the

handling of such cases. Meanwhile, the accelerated implementation of return procedures of

persons posing a security risk relies on operational measures internally and readmission

cooperation externally.

(6) Insufficient effectiveness of the readmission process

While readmitting own nationals is an obligation under international law, some countries of

origin do not cooperate sufficiently in the identification of third-country nationals, the issuance

of travel documents, and the organisation of return operations. This obstructs the readmission

process and the effectiveness of returns, in particular for irregular migrants without valid travel

documents

The readmission process is neither defined nor regulated in the current Return Directive, and

Member States implement different approaches. Operational data show limited follow up by

Member States of enforceable return decisions, including with the submission of readmission

requests. The reason behind this discrepancy is linked to both internal and external factors,

such as administrative capacities to follow up on return decisions or the level of cooperation

and reactivity of the country of origin. While it is understood that the number of readmission

requests cannot equal the number of return decisions or the number of returns, for example

because voluntary returns often do not require a readmission request, the gap remains

important, pointing, among others, to a lack of systematic follow up of the procedural steps.

Insufficient coordination in engagement with third countries can lead to a fragmented approach

and undermine the coherence and effectiveness of the Union’s external action

and the

effectiveness of leverages.

Another specific issue is the lack of clarity and legal uncertainties in the engagement with non-

recognised third-country entities for the purpose of identification and return and readmission.

Commission Staff Working Document on the Return of Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals Posing a

Security Threat, SWD(2024) 287 final.

Commission Staff Working Document on the Return of Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals Posing a

Security Threat, SWD(2024) 287 final.

European Court of Auditors, Special Report 17/2021: EU readmission cooperation with third countries: relevant

actions

yielded

limited

results.

Available

at:

https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR21_17/SR_Readmission-cooperation_EN.pdf,

para 74.

European Court of Auditors, Special Report 17/2021: EU readmission cooperation with third countries: relevant

actions

yielded

limited

results.

Available

at:

https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR21_17/SR_Readmission-cooperation_EN.pdf,

para 125.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

The uncertainties related to sharing the necessary data between Member States, as well as the

transfer of such data to third countries for the purpose of readmission, lead to inconsistent

approaches between Member States and towards third countries. In certain cases, these

inconsistencies can lead to ineffective procedures and can prevent the completion of the return

and readmission process

. This situation is particularly problematic for data relating to the

confirmation of nationality of third-country nationals, which is necessary to complete the

readmission process.

3. Objectives of an effective EU return policy

An effective EU return policy aims to contribute to the increase of the overall number of returns

and, ultimately, to a credible migration management system. To achieve that result, the

following specific objectives are sought:

(1) Simplify the return process and increase its effectiveness

Rules, definitions and procedures in relation to forced and voluntary return should be made

clearer, less burdensome and more streamlined. Exchange of information and cooperation

between competent authorities should be strengthened through a clear framework. Recognition

of return decisions issued by other Member States should be further strengthened, to reduce

administrative steps, avoid duplication and send a firm signal to third-country nationals that

there is no way to avoid the enforcement of return by going to another Member State. There is

a need to ensure that information on the return decision exchanged by Member States include

the key elements to allow for recognition and enforcement. More clarity is needed on how to

assess the risk of absconding, including in relation to third-country nationals who moved to

another Member State without authorisation, as well as on conditions for detention and

alternatives to it. Alignment with some of the key novelties of the Pact would also reduce

administrative complexity and streamline the process. Establishing common rules, including

on procedural rights for the individuals concerned, is key for building mutual trust among

Member States, which is a necessary element for consistent and efficient action across the EU,

and for the recognition and enforcement of return decisions.

(2) Strengthen the European dimension of return

The complexity and fragmentation of existing approaches within the EU system could be

overcome also through a system of common rules, structures and solutions that have a

European dimension. It is key that irregular migrants know that moving without authorisation

to another Member State will not be a solution to remain in the EU and exploit possible gaps,

because they will be subject to the same rules and procedures across the EU.

At the same time, the necessary degree of flexibility should be ensured, taking into account

Member States’ constitutional, legal, procedural and institutional structures, so that the return

legal framework can be successfully and efficiently implemented.

Therefore, there is a need to:

As confirmed by the information collected in preparation of joint committees of readmission agreements and

arrangements as well as in relevant Council Working Groups and Commission Expert Groups.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Reduce opportunities for the returnee to circumvent return rules due to the

inefficient interaction between different national authorities or by absconding to

another Member State. Recognition and enforcement of return decisions among

Member States as well as measures against absconding would play an important

role;

Harness efficiencies, allowing for the pooling of resources and expertise and for

seamless cooperation among Member States. It would allow effective support from

Frontex, building on the work done by the Agency for instance on flight booking

and reintegration through the EU Reintegration Programme;

Ensure alignment of the return rules with the Pact, in particular with the asylum

legislation and the Return Border Procedure Regulation;

Ensure that all Member States allocate the necessary resources and capacities to

return, including for the purpose of contingency planning and ensuring well-

prepared systems;

Increase the EU credibility towards third countries, through putting in place

coherent and predictable readmission procedures as an integral part of the return

process and with increased coordination in external action.

(3) Incentivise cooperation by the third-country national

The cooperation of third-country nationals should be strengthened to get a more efficient and

swifter return process, in particular by enabling the establishment and verification of

nationality, obtaining travel documents and ensuring that the returnee is available for the

successful enforcement of the return decision. The obligation to cooperate should be

proportionate and in line with fundamental rights. It should be accompanied by clear

information on the rights and obligations of third-country national.

The possibility to carry out returns to countries other than the country of origin or transit that

accept the returnee could work as a deterrent for irregular migration and as an incentive to

cooperate. It would be important to ensure that any solutions are fully in line with EU’s overall

approach to the external dimension of migration, which is based on comprehensive, mutually

beneficial partnerships with third countries and promoting the shared goal of migration policy

that is fair and firm.

(4) Ensure the availability of the third-country national subject to return and prevent

absconding and secondary movements

Ensuring the availability of individuals subject to a return decision is a key component of the

effectiveness of a system that prevents and limits absconding. Detention or, where appropriate,

alternatives to detention, should be implemented where there is a risk of absconding. This is

also important for identification of returnees, cases of non-cooperation or people posing a

security risk. An integrated and coherent system to manage absconding should also take

account of new solutions, including digital ones.

(5) Incentivise voluntary return for returnees who cooperate and make forced return a

credible option

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Voluntary return is key for the efficiency of the return process as the most cost-effective and

easier way to return third-country nationals. A prerequisite and an effective incentive to

enhance the uptake of voluntary return is a credible forced return option, and more clarity on

the interplay between the two should be sought. To this end, measures are needed to better

manage the situation of third-country nationals who do not cooperate, who abscond to another

Member State, who pose a security risk or who have not voluntarily returned before the date

given to them. Member States should have procedures and capacity to enforce return decisions

and to speedily support those who choose to return voluntarily, including by enhancing

cooperation between the different authorities.

(6) Facilitate the return of persons posing a security risk

The return of persons posing a security risk is an EU priority. Exchange of information between

relevant authorities should be streamlined and all relevant tools should be used to identify such

persons and ensure their swift and effective return. Strengthened rules are necessary, in

particular on detention, entry bans and the use of forced returns, while ensuring the respect of

the principle of non-refoulement.

(7) Uphold the respect of fundamental rights

The respect of fundamental rights should remain a key requirement in the return process, in

particular of the rights recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The jurisprudence in relation to the implementation of the Charter should be taken into account.

In addition, compliance should be ensured with relevant obligations stemming from

international law, in particular the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, the United

Nations Convention against Torture and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the

Child.

(8) Increase the effectiveness of the readmission procedure

The readmission procedure is an integral part of the return process – there is no return without

a successful readmission procedure. This success depends on both internal and external factors.

On the internal side, much can be done in terms of ensuring a coherent approach towards third

countries, building on the experience of implementing the existing EU readmission

instruments. This would complement the external efforts, including the conclusion of new

readmission instruments and the use of positive and negative leverages. Coordination and

transparency in the engagement with third countries should be strengthened to maximise results

to the benefit of all Member States.

4. Ways forward considered

With a view to addressing the challenges and meeting the objectives set out above, three ways

forward have been considered.

•

Alternative A: Bringing improvements while working within the current

framework.

This involves better implementation of the current legal framework by

making use of the available non-legislative tools.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

•

Alternative B: New legal framework (directive or regulation) introducing new

tools, streamlined rules and simplification to make return rules more efficient and

put in place an overall more harmonised common system for returns.

This

alternative increases the consistency and clarity of common EU rules and includes key

novelties, while maintaining a certain degree of flexibility to respond to national

realities.

Alternative C: New legal framework (regulation) setting out streamlined and fully

harmonised rules.

This alternative provides for a fully harmonised common EU return

system.

•

4.1. Alternative A: Bringing improvements

while

working within the current framework

Under this alternative, the current legal framework, i.e. the Return Directive of 2008, would be

maintained. The Commission would continue working with Member States on implementing

the Commission’s Recommendations of 2017 and 2023

, which contain detailed guidance on

how Member States can use the flexibilities in the current Return Directive to speed up return

as well as to recognise and enforce return decisions issued by another Member State.

The innovations brought by the Pact, such as the closer link between asylum and return and the

return border procedure, would have a positive impact on the system. On the more novel

aspects of the Pact not covered by the Return Directive, such as the obligation of, and the

incentives for the returnee to cooperate, the Commission would prepare a new recommendation

to guide Member States on how to implement it or amend national law. The Guidelines on

Alternatives to Detention drafted by the EU Agency for Asylum and the Good Practices on

Alternatives to Detention in return procedures prepared by Frontex would help Member States

to strengthen the prevention of absconding

. The Commission would build on the efforts

already made in the context of the implementation of the EU Strategy on Voluntary Return and

Reintegration.

To achieve a more common approach in cooperation among Member States towards the same

objectives and ensure a unified approach vis-a-vis third countries, the Commission could issue

a communication or a strategy setting out its vision on how to work better jointly. This

communication or strategy could task actors such as Frontex or the EU Return Coordinator to

work on specific topics or actions for a more unified and integrated approach.

The work of the EU Return Coordinator would continue on the basis of the operational strategy,

to be updated, as needed, and taking into account the outcome of the already implemented

actions.

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/432 of 7 March 2017 on making returns more effective when

implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C/2017/1600; Commission

Recommendation of 16 March 2023 on mutual recognition of return decisions and expediting returns when

implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C/2023/1763.

European Union Agency for Asylum, Guidelines on Alternatives to Detention, December 2024 and Frontex,

Good Practices on Alternatives to Detention in return procedures, January 2025.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Building on the document issued in December 2024

, the Commission would take forward

work on the return of third-country nationals posing a security risk, notably by developing

guidance and supporting the sharing of best practices and cooperation among Member States.

Building on the evaluation of the renewed SIS, the Commission could further guide and support

the use of return alerts in SIS through updating the SIS II User Manual. This would complement

the endeavours to enhance the use of mutual recognition, as set out in the Commission

Recommendation of 16 March 2023 on the mutual recognition of return decisions

Guidance would also be provided to foster a more coherent approach to the readmission

procedure. Data collection and data exchange in relation to return and readmission would

continue within the current set-up.

Solutions to manage irregular migration would be further explored within the existing legal

framework, taking into account the existing definition of the country of return, allowing for

return to the country of origin or transit, or to another country where the person voluntarily

agrees to return.

To overcome the issues linked to insufficient cooperation of third countries, the EU and

Member States would have recourse to the tools available in the current framework, such as

Article 25a of the Visa Code.

The respect of fundamental rights would continue to be guaranteed respected in line with the

provisions of the Return Directive.

4.2. Alternative B: New legal framework (directive or regulation) introducing new tools,

streamlined rules and simplification to make return rules more efficient and put in place

an overall more harmonised common system for returns

Under this alternative, a new legal instrument would be proposed by the Commission, putting

in place an overall more harmonised common system. While the legislative proposal would

aim to create common and streamlined rules for effectively managing returns, it would leave

some flexibility to the Member States, where appropriate, for the new framework to be adapted

to national specificities.

Such new instrument would include a number of innovations and would further clarify and

expand some of the current rules, to address the challenges and attain the identified objectives.

It would respond to the political calls for a new approach to manage returns by setting up a

coherent and streamlined system, built solidly on the basis of the experiences gained in the

implementation of the current rules and on the evidence identified in the evidence base section

of this document, and would strengthen the European dimension.

This alternative would allow introducing in the legal framework key novelties tested or

discussed in recent years, such as the obligation to cooperate, incentives, counselling and a

Commission Staff Working Document on the Return of Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals Posing a

Security Threat, SWD (2024) 287 final.

Commission Recommendation of 16 March 2023 on mutual recognition of return decisions and expediting

returns when implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C (2023) 1763

final.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

permissive approach to returns to third countries other than the country of origin or transit. It

would expand and clarify issues not sufficiently addressed in the current Directive, such as the

assessment of the risk of absconding and the rules on detention.

To address problems to which the current Directive’s responses are not entirely satisfactory,

this alternative would further strengthen forced return and make it a credible option so that

voluntary return would be incentivised. Specific rules would also bring a tailored solution to

swiftly return third-country nationals with no right to stay posing a security risk.

Aiming at simplification, the new instrument would clarify the return rules, reducing the need

for interpretation and the divergence in approaches. It would firmly embed readmission

procedures as part of the return process, as well as the possibility for a standard form for

readmission applications to be used, where possible.

Recognition of return decisions issued by other Member States would become mandatory, to

reinforce the European dimension of return. However, a two-step approach could be envisaged

where recognition would remain optional for a time while the necessary legal and technical

arrangements for an optimal functioning of the system are put in place. Such two-step approach

would also allow for the Regulation 2024/1351 on Asylum and Migration Management to start

being applied, ensuring the best condition to implement mandatory recognition as part of a

comprehensive migration management system.

The new instrument would also be able to address the increased need for communication and

exchange of information between authorities within and across the Member States and the

transfer of data to third countries, including by setting effective processes and providing for a

clear legal basis, where needed. It would complete the alignment of the EU return rules with

the Pact, ensuring a coherent and more effective approach.

The new instrument would uphold the respect of fundamental rights of returnees, providing

clear procedural safeguards and by aligning the provisions on the protection of minors with the

ones established by the Pact. It would also make it possible to introduce a right to information

and legal assistance during judicial proceedings.

4.3. Alternative C: New legal framework (regulation) setting out streamlined and fully

harmonised rules

Under this alternative, a new legal instrument, which would be a regulation, would harmonise

in detail all aspects of the return process, providing for a fully coherent and unified system.

The new regulation would define all the procedural steps of the return process, detailed rules

on the interplay between forced and voluntary return, and legislate all aspects and options of

key concepts such as the obligation to cooperate, the consequences in case of non-cooperation

as well as the relevant incentives to cooperate, which would be fully harmonised among

Member States. It would describe in detail all the rules on detention, detention conditions, the

types of alternatives to detention, including when and how they are to be applied. It would

leave no room for any discrepancies between Member States, including when they carry out

the return procedure of illegally staying third-country nationals posing security risks.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

The regulation would exhaustively regulate procedural aspects within the EU competence. It

would provide for an EU-wide return decision directly applicable and enforceable in all

Member States as of the entry into force of the regulation. The regulation would introduce a

mandatory readmission form with a view to create a fully harmonised system for return across

Member States and would increase the level of coordination and transparency on external

action.

Under this alternative, the possibility to carry out returns to a third country other than the

country of origin or of transit would be regulated with a detailed procedure setting out all the

steps Member States need to follow to ensure return to such third country. A fully harmonised

monitoring mechanism to assess the implementation and to take into account possible changes

in the third country would be put in place.

The regulation would enhance communication and information exchange among authorities

within and between Member States, establishing effective processes and providing a clear legal

basis. By fully aligning the EU return rules with overarching European objectives, it would

ensure not only a more effective approach but also a thoroughly harmonised and stringent

regulatory environment.

5. A comparative analysis of alternatives A, B and C

The three alternative ways forward each have their own merits, advantages and disadvantages,

complementing the EU legal framework on migration in different ways. The following

comparative analysis assesses how each alternative would address the current challenges and

objectives, taking into account the impact in terms of respecting fundamental rights, ensuring

political feasibility, proportionality and subsidiarity, and reducing administrative burden.

(a) Bringing improvements while working within the current framework

The limitations of the current Return Directive have been noted. The recast proposal of 2018

identified the main challenges that could not be sufficiently addressed, including difficulties

and obstacles to successfully enforce return decisions due to diverging and inefficient national

practices implementing the EU framework; inconsistent definitions and interpretations; lack of

cooperation on the part of third-country nationals which leads to obstructing the return

procedures; insufficient exchanges of necessary information in view of carrying out returns; as

well as the efficiency of cooperation of countries of origin. Without a new legislative

instrument, these limitations would remain. Some of the key asks of Member States, including

clarifying definitions, simplifying the process, allowing for new solutions to manage irregular

migration such as returns to a country other than the country of origin or transit, and generally

coming forward with a new approach on returns could not be achieved.

The objective to

simplify the process and increase effectiveness

could hardly be achieved by

maintaining the current situation. In the past years, expert discussions have focused on how

return rules can be clarified to simplify the return process

. Divergent practices amongst

Member States which have led to efficiency losses have been linked to a great extent to the

Council Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion (IMEX); Strategic Committee on Immigration,

Frontiers and Asylum; Contact Group - Return Directive (E02232).

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

different interpretations of the rules in the current Return Directive. Member States would

continue encountering challenges in the implementation of the return rules due to the

complexity of the system and the extensive body of jurisprudence. Efforts have been made to

try to address those shortcomings through operational action and guidance in the form of

recommendations, but their impact has remained limited.

A key discussion point on the questions of simplification and effectiveness has been the

content

and form of return decisions.

Under this alternative, no harmonisation, even limited, would

be possible.

Recognition and enforcement of return decisions

would remain a limited practice: currently

some Member States have flexibilities in their national law to allow recognition and

enforcement of a decision from another Member State, while others are tied to the legal

obligation to issue a new return decision

While remaining key for the implementation of the Pact, the return process would not be fully

aligned with the innovations introduced in the asylum legislation and would not benefit of the

efficiency gains, creating bottlenecks.

Under this alternative, the objective to

incentivise the cooperation of the third-country

national

could only be achieved through recommendations and guidance. This would create a

situation where third-country nationals would have different rights and obligations depending

on the Member State carrying out the return procedure, which could result in secondary

movements. Maintaining the

status quo

and not introducing an obligation to cooperate would

prolong current efficiency issues linked to the lack of cooperation of third-country nationals

and would not meet the preference of most Member States to include an obligation for returnees

to cooperate

The objective to

ensure the availability of the third-country national

could be pursued by

providing targeted guidance on how to manage the risk of absconding and on measures other

than detention that could be used to respond to a specific risk of absconding. While this could

improve the situation in some Member States, it would not provide for a mandatory legal

framework and would not result in a streamlined approach across Member States. This could

potentially lead to increased chances of evading the return process depending on the Member

State where the illegally staying third-country national would be physically present.

The objective to

incentivise voluntary returns for third-country nationals who cooperate

and to make forced return a credible option

could only partially be achieved through

guidance and sharing of best practices. The initial findings of the ongoing study on gaps and

needs of EU law in the area of return and the outcome of the consultation process highlight the

importance to clarify the two concepts of voluntary returns and forced returns to help improve

the efficiency and predictability of the process. The use of incentives and counselling, which

has proven its effectiveness, would remain a choice of the individual Member State, allowing

for full flexibility. Voluntary return would remain the priority and central pillar of the system,

Based on discussions in the Contact Group - Return Directive (E02232).

Informed by the stakeholder consultation conducted in the framework of the study on Gaps and Needs of EU

Law in the Area of Return.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

with no additional tools to follow-up in case voluntary return is not respected. Returnees who

do not cooperate and who do not return within the period for voluntary departure would not

automatically be channelled into a forced return procedure. This alternative would not improve

rules to manage the risk of absconding. The possibility to return a third-country national to a

third country other than the country of origin or transit – a possible incentive to cooperate –

could not be implemented in the current legal framework.

The objective of

facilitating the return of persons posing a security risk

would be pursued

by using the derogations provided for in the Return Directive. It could be facilitated through

targeted recommendations and sharing of best practices

The objective of

strengthening the European dimension

would only be partially achieved,

including in the framework of the Pact implementation and by developing additional guidance.

In the consultation process, stakeholders have highlighted the importance of ensuring

alignment with the rules of the Pact. Under this alternative, the revision of the return rules

would remain the missing piece of the Pact, and a misalignment with the new rules of the

asylum system would persist, creating bottlenecks in the return process that would not allow to

build on the efficiency gains made in other parts of the migration management system.

The objective of

increasing the effectiveness of the readmission procedure

would only be

reached partially. While the Commission could provide guidelines and recommendations to

overcome the strong fragmentation in approaches between Member States, including different

procedures in place, the effectiveness of such an approach would be limited in terms of ensuring

better coordination, addressing the limited follow-up of enforceable return decisions with

readmission requests, and optimising the use of leverages. Increasing the number of EU

readmission instruments in the current system would allow to reduce the fragmentation in the

Union’s engagement with third countries. Working within the current framework would not

allow for the introduction of a sound legal basis for the exchange of data between Member

States and transfer to third countries necessary to support and clarify the readmission process.

Member States have asked for the possibility to implement so called “return hubs”. The current

definition of return would not allow to

return third-country nationals to countries different

from their country of origin or transit,

except in the cases detailed in the Return Directive.

Fundamental rights

would continue to be respected according to the rules of the Return

Directive and in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This alternative would not

provide for streamlined procedures with the ones of the Pact where relevant.

Some of the identified objectives could, to some extent, be addressed through guidance,

recommendations, strategies, action plans and exchanges of best practices. This alternative

would have the advantage of leaving full flexibility to Member States to adapt and adjust as

they see fit. However, this method has its limits. For example, the experiences in implementing

Such as in the Staff working document on the return of illegally staying third-country nationals posing a security

threat adopted by the Commission services on 16 December 2024, which provides an overview of Member States

different practices and calls for making full use of the existing tools for the swift return of third-country nationals

posing a security threat.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

the Commission Recommendation

and the thematic Schengen evaluation on return

have

shown that while some Member States may be able to implement recommendations, others

have less margin of manoeuvre, depending on how their national legal framework has

transposed the Return Directive, and on the possibility to change such legal framework.

Some of the key objectives identified in this document, such as establishing an obligation for

the third-country national to cooperate and ensuring the availability of the returnee, would only

be possible by amending national legislation. Several Member States have in fact introduced

such provisions in their national law. This approach, however, risks having a distorting effect

on the EU system, with different approaches that may prompt returnees to move to Member

States with different rules, negatively impacting the coherence of the EU system and the Union

and the Schengen area.

(b) New legal framework (directive or regulation) introducing new tools, streamlined

rules and simplification to make return rules more efficient and put in place an

overall more harmonised common system for returns

A new legal instrument which provides new tools, streamlined rules and possibilities to

simplify and render return rules more efficient, would allow to modernise the EU return rules,

establishing an overall more harmonised common system, and address the challenges

identified, while leaving a certain room to adapt to national realities.

The objective to

simplify the process and increase effectiveness

could be achieved with a

thorough revision of the current rules embedded in an entirely new legislative instrument, to

increase clarity and facilitate implementation.

A new legal framework would make it possible to provide better clarity and certainty with

regards to the application of the safeguards, as enshrined in the Charter, including the right to

an effective remedy and legal assistance. Legal and linguistic assistance enables returnees to

exercise the right to an effective remedy and can contribute to a more efficient process. Better

clarity with regards to the application of the safeguards will create better certainty both for the

third-country nationals and for the national authorities, with a view to contribute to a more

efficient system. A number of support systems, including counselling and potentially

reintegration support where relevant, would support the operational aspects of the return

process.

An important step towards the simplification and the European dimension of the system would

be to set up the conditions for the

recognition and enforcement of return decisions

to happen

systematically, building on the current experience with non-mandatory recognition and

enforcement. The new legal instrument would address the issues that have been identified in

the expert exchanges, discussions with the Member States and in the ongoing study on gaps

and needs of EU law in the area of returns, including by aligning key steps of the procedure

and improving the capacity to communicate on return decisions between authorities. This

Commission Recommendation of 16 March 2023 on mutual recognition of return decisions and expediting

returns when implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, C/2023/1763.

European Commission, Schengen thematic evaluation report - Bridging national gaps: towards an effective EU

return system. Available at:

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/schengen-thematic-evaluation-report-bridging-

national-gaps-towards-effective-eu-return-system_en.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

mechanism would avoid issuing a new return decision to the same person, thereby preventing

that a new appeal is launched in the Member State where the third-country national is illegally

staying. If necessary, the original return decision would instead be appealed in the issuing

Member State.

To ensure the completeness and effectiveness of the communication between national systems,

without changing the form and content of national return decisions, the new legal instrument

would introduce a ‘European

Return Order’,

a common form in which the key elements of

the return decision would be inserted. The European Return Order would provide the necessary

basis for recognition and enforcement of return decisions. It would co-exist with the national

return decision and would be made available in the Schengen Information System. To allow

for the necessary legal and technical arrangements to be in place so that the European Return

Order could be made available in the Schengen Information System, a two-step approach

would be necessary, where the recognition and enforcement of return decisions would remain

optional for a limited period of time. The start of the implementation of the Pact would further

support at systemic level the implementation of the recognition and enforcement of return

decision, which would complement and strengthen the other measures linked to return and

asylum. The new legal instrument would clearly define how the recognition and enforcement

of return decisions should take place. To ensure proportionality, it would take into account the

concerns raised by Member States during consultations and set out limited derogations on

which Member States may decide not to recognise the return decision issued by another

Member State.

With this alternative, the

common European dimension of the return system could be

further strengthened

to make cooperation simpler and more effective, minimise distortions

and opportunities for abuse and increase coherence internally and towards third countries. In

addition to the new rules on mutual recognition, the new legal instrument would identify the

components of the EU common system for returns and identify avenues for cooperation

between Member States. It would promote alignment between the key stages of the migration

process and complement the rules introduced by the Pact, for example when it comes to legal

assistance in case of an appeal or review before a judicial authority. The alignment with the

relevant rules of the Pact would be sought particularly to further simplify and ensure coherence

between the asylum and the return process. For example, alignment regarding health issues,

protection and age assessment of minors, would avoid unjustified diverging standards,

repetitions and ensure coherence with different parts of the migration process. The new

legislative framework would provide an option for Member States to jointly manage irregular

movements between Member States, based on cooperation with a view to safeguarding the

Schengen area without internal border controls.

The new rules would offer the appropriate degree of flexibility to allow Member States to adapt

in the most efficient way to the different situations encountered. This would notably be done

by allowing them to

determine which administrative decisions should be issued separately

or together.

Issuing a return decision jointly with an entry ban and a detention order may be

an efficient way for a national process, but in other instances flexibility would be needed for

the latter two decisions to be issued at a different moment. The new system would create more

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

clarity as to what decisions are related to the return process but would also allow Member

States to retain flexibility as to when and how these decisions are issued, whether jointly or

separately depending on what is most efficient.

The objective to

incentivise cooperation of third-country nationals

would be achieved by

introducing a clear obligation for the third-country national to cooperate, building on the

approach adopted in the legal acts composing the Pact. The obligation imposed on the third-

country national should comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality. Such

obligation could be strengthened using incentives and consequences of non-cooperation, also

building on the experience of certain Member States. Governmental and non-governmental

entities in Member States have explored incentives, such as enhanced counselling and

reintegration support, in many cases adapted to the level of needs and the profile of the third-

country national

(intensive case management has proven effective to increase compliance

with return decisions

). Along with incentives, some Member States have also introduced

consequences for non-cooperation. In such cases, consultations suggest the need for a balance

between encouraging voluntary compliance and safeguarding against vulnerability

Consequences for non-cooperation would be proportionate and based on an individual

assessment, and could include, among others, the seizure of identity or travel documents,

financial penalties and the extension of entry bans. The dissuasive effect of a longer entry ban

or the incentivising effect of a shorter entry ban could be a particularly important tool to

strengthen the cooperation of the third-country national. Incentives could also include the

possibility to return voluntarily within a certain date set out in the return decision or perceiving

voluntary return and reintegration assistance. The new legal instrument would leave some

flexibility to the Member States on incentives and consequences of non-cooperation, to best

adapt to the local context and to the situation of the third-country national.

The European Parliament’s substitute impact assessment on the recast Return Directive

proposal found that the proposed recast did not present a clear link between the duty to

cooperate and the rights of returnees and suggested to “clarify the balance between fairness

and effectiveness in relation to the duty to cooperate”

. To achieve this, alternative B would

reinforce procedural safeguards by including clear provisions on the right to information, to

ensure that the third-country nationals are clearly informed about their rights and obligations

and about the consequences in case the obligation is not respected. To this end, the requirements

of the current framework concerning translations would be maintained, to ensure the person is

properly informed, understands his or her obligations, to ensure clarity and predictability both

Targeted consultation conducted within the study on Gaps and Needs of EU Law in the Area of Return; European

Commission, Incentives and Motives for Voluntary Departure: EMN, Incentives and motives for voluntary

departure, 2022. Available at:

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-07/EMN_Voluntary-

depart_INFORM_final_080722.pdf,

p. 3.

European Commission, Schengen thematic evaluation report - Bridging national gaps: towards an effective EU

return system. Available at:

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/schengen-thematic-evaluation-report-bridging-

national-gaps-towards-effective-eu-return-system_en.

Targeted consultation conducted within the study on the Gaps and Needs of EU Law in the Area of Return.

European Parliamentary Research Service, The Return Directive 2008/115/EC: European Implementation

Assessment, EPRS Study, PE 642.840, June 2020.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

for the third-country national and the national authorities, including to prevent unnecessary

litigation.

Enhanced cooperation by third-country nationals would also help

ensure their availability

during the return process.

Currently, the use of alternatives to detention varies, and so do

national practices, in particular when it comes to the requirements for detention and the use of

alternatives

. The new legal instrument would provide more clarity and streamline the use of

detention and alternatives to detention. It would provide an exhaustive list for grounds of

detention and a clear framework for Member States to substantiate the need for detention to

judicial authorities. Periodic Schengen evaluations show that this is already common practice

in certain Member States and allows them to decrease administrative burden and apply

detention more effectively. To address the lack of detention capacity, Member States would

have the possibility to detain third-country nationals in dedicated branches of facilities other

than specialised facilities. On the assessment of the risk of absconding, the new legal

instrument would build on discussions with stakeholders and on the provision of the Reception

Conditions Directive

and take into account the considerations of civil society and expert

groups

. Improved assessment capacity would help national authorities not only to increase

effective returns, but also to identify the kind of preventive measure to be applied to a specific

case, considering the necessity and proportionality of these measures. Member States would

retain some flexibility to continue implementing good practices that have proven their value in

the national context.

The new legal instrument would further

incentivise voluntary returns and make forced

return a credible option,

for example in connection to cases of lack of cooperation, and by

providing for additional options such as the possibility to return to a third country other than

the country of origin or transit. Voluntary return would not be an option as a rule to persons

posing a risk of absconding or that represent a security risk. Moreover, this alternative would

add flexibility, compared to the current framework, on the period of time for voluntary return.

In parallel, the use of counselling and reintegration could further strengthen the uptake of

voluntary returns. The legal instrument would provide for Member States to establish return

and reintegration counselling structures and national programmes to support readmission and

reintegration. However, Member States would retain flexibility to adapt counselling to their

national systems and to decide the modalities and beneficiaries of counselling and reintegration

provisions. The new instrument would clarify the possibility to “switch” between the different

paths, which has been identified as a challenge in several Member States

EMN, Study on Detention of Third-Country Nationals in the Context of Immigration, 2014.

Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards

for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast).

Meijers Committee, Comment on the Recast of the EU Return Directive. Available at:

https://www.commissie-

meijers.nl/comment/meijers-committee-comment-on-the-recast-of-the-eu-return-directive/#:~:text=CM2409-

,Meijers%20Committee%20comment%20on%20the%20recast%20of%20the%20EU%20Return,existing%20pr

ocedural%20and%20substantive%20rights;

Amnesty International, Key considerations in the context of the

upcoming revision to the EU legislative framework on returns; Civil society organisations, Comments on the

European Commission’s proposal for a recast of the Return Directive (COM(2018) 634 FINAL).

European Commission, Schengen thematic evaluation report - Bridging national gaps: towards an effective EU

return system. Available at:

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/schengen-thematic-evaluation-report-bridging-

national-gaps-towards-effective-eu-return-system_en.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Forced return monitoring is identified as a key gap in the periodic Schengen evaluations and

both Member States as well as other stakeholders have called for more clarity. To strengthen

monitoring of removals

, the new legal instrument would define some of its key aspects.

The objective of facilitating the

return of persons posing a security risk

could be further

achieved by facilitating the identification of third-country nationals through identity and

security checks carried out based on the Screening Regulation and other provisions of national

law. Third-country nationals posing a security risk would be subject to a forced return

procedure and stricter rules on entry bans. Based on an individual assessment made by a judicial

authority, they could also be subject to longer detention periods. The return of these third-

country nationals should not be suspended, except if there is a risk to breach the principle of

non-refoulement. This alternative would achieve the objective of having a more structured way

to identify security risks in place but would leave margin for Member States to go into more

details and implement additional security assessments if they identify a specific risk

, when

and if needed. The legal instrument would clarify the scope concerning the return of persons

posing a security risk by reinforcing the rules proposed in the recast Return Directive proposal

i.e. removal as a rule, the possibility for longer entry bans and a separate ground for detention.

Some stakeholders have raised the risk of arbitrariness in qualifying a person as posing a

security risk, noting the need for clear definitions of what constitutes a risk to public order or

national security

. Alternative B would clearly frame and define the categories of third-country

nationals who can be considered to fall within the scope of posing security risks for the purpose

of applying the specialised rules in the return legislation and ensure proper follow up and

monitoring of persons falling into this category.

The interplay between criminal law and the return legislation would remain unchanged.

Convicted criminals could remain outside the scope of the new legal framework since nothing

prevents Member States from, where applicable, imposing criminal sanctions to illegally

staying third-country nationals in accordance with national criminal law.

The objective of

increasing the effectiveness of the readmission procedure

could be

achieved under this alternative by introducing some basic common rules and increasing the

coherence in the Union’s approach. To facilitate data exchange between Member States and

with third countries, the necessary legal base would be provided. Data would be shared,

whenever possible, through the existing and upcoming EU information systems

. Whenever

the data cannot be shared via the EU information systems, a legal basis

to share this data via

European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Monitoring the implementation of returns: a complex puzzle with

missing pieces; Caritas Europa, Position Paper on Return – Human rights and human dignity at the centre in return

policies; Finding Agreement in Return, Improved Return Monitoring Guidelines.

Commission Staff Working Document on the Return of Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals Posing a

Security Threat, (2024) 287 final.

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), Remarks with regard to the upcoming Commission new

proposal for a Return Directive; Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM),

Position paper on EU Return Directive; European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), ECRE Comments on

the Commission Proposal for a Recast Return Directive.

EES, VIS, ETIAS, Eurodac, SIS and ECRIS-TCN, as defined by point 15 of Article 4 of Regulation (EU)

2019/818 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Within the meaning and in compliance with Article 6(1)(e) and Article 6(3) of the General Data Protection

Regulation.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

other secured channels in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

would be established. In any event, the GDPR would apply in full as regards exchanges of data

outside the EU information systems. To ensure proportionality, a reasonable threshold related

to which categories of persons would be concerned should be established for the exchange of

information concerning the criminal record.

The implementation of

returns of third-country nationals to countries other than the

country of origin or transit

would be made possible under alternative B. This would be

achieved by expanding the definition of country of return, to include return to a third country

with which there is an agreement or arrangement on return. Discussions with stakeholders on

the concept of “return hubs” have highlighted that such returns should happen on the basis of

an international agreement or arrangement for return. The legal instrument would define the

key elements of such agreements or arrangements, the conditions under which such returns

could take place and the applicable safeguards. Families with minor children and

unaccompanied minors would be excluded from the scope of such returns. To ensure

sustainability and credibility, such agreements or arrangements would only be concluded with

third countries that respect international human rights standards and principles in accordance

with international law, including the respect of the principle of non-refoulement. A dedicated

monitoring mechanism by an independent body would be put in place to monitor

implementation and consider any changing circumstance in the third country. These rules will

be subject to the supervision of courts. Such an approach would add the necessary flexibility

for return to reflect the Member States’ bilateral relations with certain third countries, migratory

realities and conditions on the ground, while ensuring full adherence to international and

human rights law.

Furthermore, the new rules should also allow for returns to a safe third country and to the first

country of asylum in cases where an application for international protection of a third-country

national has been rejected as inadmissible in relation to such third countries. This would close

any remaining technical gaps linked to Article 37 of the Asylum Procedures Regulation that

requires that a return decision is issued following a decision on inadmissibility on an asylum

application.

Finally, since alternative B could be implemented by a

directive or a regulation,

the question

of the form of the instrument should be explored, as it would have important implications in

terms of the extent to which certain objectives would be attainable.

On the one hand, a directive would grant flexibility to Member States to adapt the return rules

to their national context. Several Member States have indicated their preference for this

solution. However, other Member States have advocated for more approximation and a

common system. A directive would imply significant limitations in relation to the objectives

identified. For example, it could not establish directly applicable obligations on third-country

nationals. While the new rules could be more detailed, partially reducing the need for

interpretation, their transposition would most likely result in new divergences between Member

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of

natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing

Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

States, replicating the current challenges. The lack of coherence and harmonisation among

Member States would remain a key obstacle to achieve recognition and enforcement of other

Member States’ return decisions across the EU. A directive could not establish a direct legal

basis on data exchange in the context of return and readmission, on which the Member States

could rely directly. Finally, in the ongoing discussions on new solutions to manage irregular

migration, many Member States have called for the possibility to have an EU approach, which

would not be possible to achieve through a directive.

A regulation would ensure that key novelties are coherently addressed in all Member States,

streamlining the return procedures and ensuring a more harmonised common approach. While

in the short-term this would require an important adaptation in some Member States’ practices,

significant efficiency gains can be expected over time with better clarity of the rules and less

scope for diverging national jurisprudence. A regulation would provide the necessary

foundation for recognition and enforcement of return decisions and would guarantee that all

Member States apply the rules in the same way

, reducing the risk of divergent application.

The rules would enter into force at the same time. Obligations imposed on third-country

nationals would be equal in all Member States. This would help to address the distortions in

the current system, where differences between Member States lead to loopholes in the

functioning of the EU return system. Minimum safeguards for the rights of affected third-

country nationals would be harmonised, encouraging greater mutual trust. A regulation would

put in place the elements for a more joined-up return system at EU level and ensure better

coherence with the Pact and the Schengen rules, which are almost all regulated through

regulations.

rules

Alternative C would take the form of a regulation setting up a common EU system for returns

with detailed rules laying down all its elements. It would include many of the elements

identified in the previous option, which will be harmonised. It would result in full coherence

and unity among Member States.

The objective to

simplify the process and increase effectiveness

would be achieved by

establishing a harmonised system with detailed rules and deadlines, as well as a distinction

between administrative and judicial procedures for return. The clarity, uniformity and level of

detail of the rules would reduce the risk of unclarity. Going further in the harmonisation of the

return system, a unified governance structure would increase the operational effectiveness by

coordinating returns across Member States and creating synergies

. For example, the

evaluation of the Frontex Regulation found that Frontex is hindered by the currently

fragmented governance structures in Member States

The targeted consultation conducted within the study on the Gaps and Needs of EU Law in the Area of Return

indicates that for mandatory recognition and enforcement of return decision a regulation is necessary.

This is informed by the stakeholder consultation and preliminary analysis carried out within the ongoing study

on Gaps and Needs of EU Law in the Area of Return.

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of Regulation (EU)

2019/1896 on the European Border and Coast Guard, including a review of the Standing Corps, COM(2024) 75

final.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

The content and form of the return decision would be fully harmonised and take the form of an

EU return decision,

applicable across Member States and directly uploaded in the SIS. This

would give a strong EU dimension to returns but would require exceptions for joint decisions

on termination of legal stay and return decisions that would be difficult to design in a fully

harmonised return system due to national approaches and competence on legal residence. The

consultation process carried out in the context of the study on gaps and needs of EU law in the

area of return showed that the feasibility of providing an exhaustive set of mandatory common

elements in the return decision is considered very low by the stakeholders

The introduction of an EU return decision would make

recognition and enforcement of such

return decisions

mandatory in all cases as soon as the regulation would enter into force. The

harmonisation would also have to cover legal remedies (deadlines for lodging appeals and

duration of appeal procedures, suspensive effect, legal aid, etc.) and detention rules. By

reaching such a degree of harmonisation, the need for Frontex support could increase and its

tasks would have to be adapted accordingly.

The objective of

strengthening the European dimension

would be fully achieved with this

alternative. A regulation with fully streamlined and harmonised rules would enable the

establishment of a truly common EU approach to returns. However, this alternative might be

premature and would go against the need for a minimum of flexibility, strongly advocated for

by the majority of Member States.

The objective to

incentivise cooperation of the third-country national

would be achieved

with the introduction of the obligation to cooperate for the third-country national,

complemented by detailed rules on the applicable consequences in case of non-respect and on

the possible incentives. This would ensure that the same incentives and consequences are

applied uniformly across Member States and could reduce secondary movements. This

approach would exclude, however, many of the good practices currently implemented in

Member States to incentivise cooperation, which are based on access to certain privileges such

as social benefits and trainings, largely provided for by national legislation.

The objective to

increase the availability of third-country nationals subject to return

could

be achieved by addressing the issue of the risk of absconding of returnees through imposing

strict rules on detention and laying down the details of the use of alternatives to detention. This

would guarantee uniformity in the Member States’ approach.

The objective to

incentivise voluntary returns by making forced return a credible

alternative

could be pursued by working on the strands identified under the previous

alternative. The possibility to allow for voluntary returns could be subject to more detailed

conditions. The regulation would comprehensively address all the possible consequences and

incentives for non-cooperation as well as regulate in detail forced return monitoring.

The objective of

facilitating the return of persons posing a security risk

could be achieved

similarly to the previous alternative. Security checks could be made mandatory for all illegally

Targeted consultation conducted within the study on the Gaps and Needs of EU Law in the Area of Return.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

staying third-country nationals. While this would increase the possibility to detect early a

security risk, the additional administrative burden should be considered.

The objective of

increasing the effectiveness of the readmission procedure

would be largely

achieved under this alternative. It would set up readmission as a fully regulated part of the

return process, with definitions and procedures unified at EU level, put in place strong

assurances of transparency and strengthening coherence towards third countries. Similarly to

the second alternative, it would create a sound legal basis for the exchange of personal

information between Member States and with third countries.

Under this alternative,

return to a third country other than the country of origin

or transit

would be possible, like under the previous alternative. To ensure a coherent and unified

approach, the new legal instrument could list in detail the procedure for such returns.

Fundamental rights safeguards would need to be included. However, such returns would

inevitably involve the need to conclude an agreement or arrangement with a third country.

Having the exact procedure set out in EU law would significantly limit the possibility to adapt

each agreement or arrangement to different realities and severely constrain the room for

manoeuvre of the EU and Member States in negotiations with third countries.

This alternative would ensure that all steps under the return procedure are carried out under the

framework of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This alternative would make it possible to

reinforce and clarify the procedural safeguards at each step of the procedure, providing further

procedural rules compared to alternative B.

Introducing a new legal framework in the form of a regulation with streamlined and fully

harmonised rules

could not fulfil the objective to provide the appropriate degree of

flexibility.

Some of the key identified objectives, such as incentivising cooperation of the

returnees, encouraging voluntary returns and managing the risk of absconding do not need to

be exhaustively regulated at EU level to be effective. Some flexibility would enable Member

States to better target the implementation of the rules to their national realities, which in turn

would create a better and more efficient system overall.

Some

important horizontal considerations

also come into play. Going from the current

Return Directive to a comprehensive regulation harmonising return in detail would likely be

premature, technically challenging to implement and politically difficult for Member States to

accept. The targeted consultations indicate that such proposal may result in difficult and lengthy

negotiations, contrary to the call of Member States to swiftly put in place a revised legal

framework on return.

A regulation with little or no flexibility, harmonising all aspects of the return policy would

arguably go much further than the harmonisation achieved in the Pact. The legislative

framework of the Pact, though mainly based on regulations, streamlines and harmonises an

important part of the asylum process, while leaving some flexibility to Member States. In the

context of the Pact implementation, Member States have come a long way to find solutions in

their national systems to link asylum and return. A new regulation harmonising all aspects of

the return process may be difficult to reconcile with some of these efforts and create unintended

complexity.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

6. Identified way forward

Following an assessment of how the different alternatives perform in terms of addressing the

challenges and achieving the objectives identified, and taking into account considerations

relating to subsidiarity, proportionality and administrative burden, the impact on fundamental

rights and the political feasibility,

alternative B emerges as the identified way forward.

The identified way forward is expected to

simplify and speed up the return process

creating a common system with the necessary unity and coherence at EU level, to ensure the

effective functioning of the Pact, the stability of the Schengen area, and a stronger position vis-

à-vis third countries. It would combine the need for streamlined and more harmonised common

EU rules on return, with the need for granting a certain degree of flexibility to the Member

States. It would allow for adjustments to fit the national realities and the national contexts of

migration management, particularly when it comes to incentives to cooperate, consequences of

non-cooperation, choice and modalities of alternatives to detention, and procedural aspects of

the process, including the appeals. By bringing all these strands together and increasing the

overall performance of the return and readmission system, the identified way forward would

allow to increase the number of returns, in line with the public expectations.

The identified way forward would provide

several key innovations

aimed at increasing the

effectiveness, consistency, and fairness of the return process across Member States, while

respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and leaving appropriate flexibility

to Member States, where needed, to better achieve the objectives identified.

The identified way forward would foresee

common procedural rules

for the issuance of return

decisions and entry bans, ensuring consistency across Member States. Under the new system,

the return decisions will continue to include a clear obligation to leave the EU that, if not

complied with, should be accompanied by an entry ban. To foster the credibility of the Union’s

return system, the dissuasive effect of entry bans should be enhanced by increasing their length.

The maximum duration of an entry ban would be even longer for persons posing security risks.

In any case, the new rules would allow to extend the duration of the entry ban by successive

periods based on an individual assessment. National authorities would have the flexibility to

determine the total duration of entry bans so as to respond in a proportionate manner to the

relevant circumstances of each case. The regulation would set clear common rules that enhance

the coherence of the EU-wide system and facilitate cooperation between authorities of different

Member States in case of secondary movements, while identifying specific situations in which

Member States need flexibility to address specific national circumstances arising from the

national legal order. In terms of administrative burden, the standardised rules would

reduce

complexity,

making return procedures more efficient and less burdensome for authorities.

The introduction of the

EU Return Order and of a mechanism for the recognition and

enforcement of return decisions issued by another Member State

would be an important

step for simplification. It would reduce administrative burden at EU level by reducing the

number of return decisions issued by individual Member States. It would also give a truly

European dimension to returns and discourage secondary movements between Member States.

The EU Return Order, which would include the key elements of the return decision, would be

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

made available in SIS and the additional administrative burden would be minimal, as the form

would complement and streamline some of the information that is already to be introduced in

the SIS. It is expected also to limit the need for additional exchanges. To give Member States

time to adapt to the new mechanism, the switch from voluntary to mandatory recognition would

be delayed compared to the entry into application of the legal instrument and linked to the

outcome of a review aimed at verifying that all the necessary legal and technical arrangement

for the making available of the European Return Order in SIS are in place. This would also

allow for the implementation of the Pact to have started, creating the optimal conditions for the

recognition of return decisions to be implemented as part of the migration management system.

The

fundamental rights of returnees

would be fully respected also by means of procedural

safeguards, ensuring that return decisions are subject to scrutiny, including the right to appeal

and the prohibition of refoulement, with due attention to vulnerable persons and the best

interests of the child. The enforcement of return decisions, removal orders and entry bans would

be suspended until the time limit within which third-country nationals can appeal has expired.

During that time limit, national authorities would not enforce the return decision but would

nonetheless be able to prepare the return operation or detain the person if conditions are met.

After that time limit, a judicial authority would decide if an appeal should suspend the decision

pending the outcome of the appeal. The new rules would also provide clarity by aligning with

the caselaw of the European Court of Justice on the suspension of the enforcement of the return

decision in case of a breach of the principle of non-refoulement. The right to good

administration would remain a central pilar and be ensured by the safeguards around

administrative decisions.

The possibility for the third-country national to request a written or oral translation of the main

elements of the return decision (the grounds on which the return decision is based and

information about a remedy), already provided for in the current legal framework, would be

maintained to ensure that the third-country national is informed and able to comply with the

obligation to cooperate. Similarly, the new instrument would preserve Member States’

flexibility on how to organise the translation - including by having a standardised template.

Provisions on free legal assistance upon request, also provided for in the current legal

framework, would be maintained and partially aligned with the Pact rules. Common rules

ensuring that third-country nationals are properly informed of their rights and obligations is an

important step in reducing as much as possible the risk for lengthy litigation and can ultimately

serve to facilitate and speed up the process. Enabling third-country nationals to be correctly

informed would contribute to better reasoned claims and a faster treatment by courts.

Specific rules or derogations would be introduced for minors, unaccompanied minors or

families with children, where necessary. The right to liberty would be protected by rules

framing detention, which could be ordered only to the extent that it is proportionate and

necessary to prepare the return or carry out the removal. The new instrument would go further

than the current Directive by introducing common rules on alternatives to detention, which

should be proportionate to the risk of absconding. It would also guarantee a right to information

of the returnee by setting clear rules and procedures to exercise this right. The new instrument

would maintain the current provisions on the need to establish a monitoring mechanism for

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

removals, but would provide more clarity as to what this implies concretely in line with the

recommendations provided regularly in the context of Schengen evaluations, agreed by the

Council.

In line with the new asylum legislation, the identified way forward would explicitly impose an

obligation on third-country nationals to cooperate

with the return process, to be

complemented by

positive incentives and clear consequences for non-cooperation.

The

system would remain fair and balanced, respecting the fundamental rights of individuals by

offering them the opportunity to challenge decisions and access legal remedies. In terms of

subsidiarity, the introduction of the obligation to cooperate would ensure that Member States

can pursue returns more effectively, while retaining flexibility in implementation at the national

level. This innovation would aim at significantly reducing administrative burden, as the lack

of cooperation of the third-country nationals, particularly in the identification process and in

terms of availability for the procedures, has been identified as one of the main elements

hampering the return process.

One of the core responsibilities of the Union is to ensure an area of freedom, security and justice

for its citizens. In light of the evolving geopolitical landscape and the emergence of new

security threats, the EU must adopt a comprehensive and coordinated approach to security. In

line with the European Internal Security Strategy

, this also requires that security

considerations be integrated and mainstreamed across all EU legislation. Those aspects have

been duly taken into account in shaping the identified way forward, which would provide for

specific rules to facilitate and speed up the return of third-country nationals posing a

security risk,

to respond to a clear political priority and to the concerns expressed by citizens.

For this reason, persons posing a security risk would be included in the scope of the identified

way forward. By issuing return decisions, entering return alerts and flagging security risks, the

collective interest of having common rules on how to handle the situations raised by these

individuals, including also a trace in SIS, would be met. Convicted criminals, on the other side,

could remain outside the scope as they are subject to criminal law: for this reason, there would

be no need to provide explicitly for an exemption in the regulation, given the different legal

base. To facilitate identification, third-country nationals illegally staying in the territory of the

Member States would be subject to identity and security checks. Stricter rules would apply to

third-country national in terms of the form of return, the time and conditions of detention,

length of entry bans and appeals. To ensure that persons posing security risks leave the territory

of the EU as swiftly as possible, those third-country nationals would be subject to removal

without being granted a date until which they need to leave. These measures would be

proportionate in view of the important security and public order risks, ensuring the respect of

the principle of non-refoulement.

Voluntary and forced return would be made mutually reinforcing

under the identified way

forward. The obligation to issue a return decision to all illegally staying third-country nationals

would remain in the identified way forward to ensure adequate accountability and to be able to

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on ProtectEU: a European Internal Security Strategy

(COM(2025) 148 final).

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

monitor returns from the EU. The return decision would be enforced through removal of those

third-country nationals who refuse to cooperate, abscond to another Member State, pose

security risks or do not respect the terms for voluntary returns. A date by which the person can

leave voluntarily would be indicated in the return decision in the other cases. The system would

be built so as to allow to switch from voluntary return to removal, and vice versa. For instance,

if a third-country national involved in a removal process decides to cooperate, Member States

could redirect that person in the voluntary return channel. Moreover, voluntary return would

remain a flexible form of return: the date by which a third-country national must leave the

territory of the Member States could either be prolonged when it expires or extended from the

outset beyond the normal period usually granted, for example to ensure alignment with national

voluntary return programmes. The right to information for returnees would be reinforced,

enabling individuals to make informed decisions about their return, while understanding the

consequences of non-cooperation. The proportionality principle would be maintained, with

removals to be used when necessary and clear safeguards in place. Fundamental rights would

be protected, including by the availability of legal remedies, the provision of information to

ensure that individuals are fully aware of their choices and their rights in the return process,

and free legal assistance and representation upon request for appeals and judicial review (with

certain limitations). Legal assistance and representation would be automatic for

unaccompanied minors. These choices take into account the consideration that voluntary

returns are the most effective option, while ensuring that returns are actually implemented and

the risk of absconding minimised.

The identified way forward would enhance Member States' ability to manage the

risk of

absconding

by introducing objective criteria to assess this risk and providing tools to ensure

that the third-country national is available for the return process. Detention would be necessary

to ensure efficiency in the return process where there is a risk of absconding. In addition, in

case where a third-country national does not cooperate with the obligation to remain on the

territory of the concerned Member State and moves to another Member State, this would be

tantamount to absconding. Consequently, the voluntary return option would not be available as

a form of return. This would be balanced with the need to respect individual freedoms, using

alternatives to detention where appropriate, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

In terms of subsidiarity, Member States would have the flexibility to apply the criteria and tools

in a manner suited to their national realities. The overarching framework would ensure that the

national tools align with EU-wide standards, reducing potential inconsistencies that could

encourage secondary movements. To respect the fundamental rights, the identified way forward

would ensure that individuals' dignity and rights are upheld throughout the process and would

provide for alternatives to detention. The availability of the returnee for the return process is

key to reduce the administrative burden and increase the effectiveness and speed of the process.

An innovative feature of the proposal would be to expand the definition of countries of return

to include additional options compared to the current Directive. The proposal would include

the possibility of

returning individuals to a third country other than their country of origin

or a country of transit,

subject to various condition as described in the previous sections.

Regarding proportionality, this innovation would provide flexibility for Member States to

pursue returns in a way that ensures effective returns and migration management. This way

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

forward has been identified taking into account the results of a number of strategic discussions

with Member States and the input of civil society, international organisations and the

Fundamental Rights Agency, to arrive at a solution that is both practically feasible and in

respects of fundamental rights.

Introducing

readmission as an integral part of the return process,

the identified way forward

would lay down common steps in the readmission procedure, with the necessary flexibility, to

bring a more coherent and credible approach towards third countries and increase effectiveness.

The administrative burden in implementing these innovations would consist in adapting to a

certain extent national processes, building on the already existing procedures for the

implementation of EU readmission agreements and arrangements. The identified way forward

would remain proportional, taking into account operational realities and bilaterally agreed

procedures. Upcoming work on digitalisation of case management, announced in the Political

Guidelines, would further mitigate the administrative burden.

The identified way forward would provide for a

clear legal basis for data exchange

among

Member States and with third countries, reducing inconsistencies and ensuring more efficient

and secure information-sharing, which further streamlines the return process. Such approach

would mirror the one followed in the context of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, whereby a

clear legal basis for information sharing between Member States was established

. The

specific technical means of communication of this data may also be detailed in a separate

legislative proposal that will address the digitalisation of case management in the area of return,

readmission and reintegration. Establishing a clear legal basis or data exchange among Member

States and with third countries would reduce administrative burden by facilitating exchanges

between national systems and with third countries, thereby enabling more effective

coordination and reducing duplication of efforts. Proportionality would be maintained by

ensuring that data exchange is focused and limited to relevant cases, avoiding unnecessary

intrusions on privacy. Proportionality would also be guaranteed by establishing a reasonable

threshold with regards to the cases for which criminal data that could be transferred to third

countries. This would only concern convictions of serious offenses, such as the ones mentioned

in European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) Regulation

100

. Subsidiarity

would be respected by establishing at EU level a clear legal basis for processing, while giving

Member States the responsibility to ensure compliance with the remaining data protection

requirements (such as the retention period). The identified way forward would ensure that data

exchanges are carried out in a way that upholds fundamental rights, with clear protections in

place to prevent misuse of personal data and ensure that the rights of individuals are

safeguarded.

The preferred choice in terms of legal instrument would be a

regulation.

This instrument would

respond to key objectives linked to simplification, streamlining, efficiency and coherence

among Member States, and create an overall more harmonised common system at EU level to

Article 51 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on

asylum and migration management.

100

Regulation (EU) 2018/1240 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 September 2018 establishing

a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) and amending Regulations (EU) No

1077/2011, (EU) No 515/2014, (EU) 2016/399, (EU) 2016/1624 and (EU) 2017/2226.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

manage returns with obligations imposed directly on the Union, the Member States and the

third-country nationals. A regulation would provide the best basis for a more uniform approach

among Member States to cooperate on returns and readmission, including through Frontex

support. While not being an end in itself, the harmonisation of the procedures would serve the

purpose of bringing rules closer so that the discrepancies that are detrimental to the

effectiveness of the process would be addressed. It would lead Member States’ authorities and

Frontex to work more coherently together and among themselves thereby facilitating and

simplifying the process for all actors acting under common rules. While a shift from a directive

to regulation is an important change and will require adaptations to Member States’ system it

should result in efficiency gains for the common EU system for returns. A regulation will ensure

that third-country nationals are treated coherently through all steps of the return procedure

regardless of the Member State in which they are illegally present and will provide the

necessary tools to tackle together a common EU challenge. It would align with the Pact

legislation on asylum, where the majority of legal acts are regulations. The needs of Member

States that expressed a preference for a directive, with a view to ensuring the necessary

flexibility to adapt to national systems, have been taken into consideration. Flexibility would

be maintained as necessary by way of derogations or exceptions, without compromising the

coherence and effectiveness of the system.

The stakeholders’ political

acceptance

of the identified way forward has been carefully

assessed, including through a wide consultation of stakeholders, as detailed in this document.

The proposal for a Return Regulation is part of the comprehensive approach to manage

migration as set out in the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation and complements

the legislative framework of the Pact adopted in May 2024. The identified way forward would

align with the key aspects of the Pact legislation, notably the Asylum Procedures Regulation

and the Return Border Procedures Regulation, the Screening Regulation, the new Reception

Conditions Directive as well as the Schengen Borders Code.

The choices made in the identified way forward would also

encourage cooperation and foster

a unified approach to returns,

eventually increasing common trust in the EU migration

management system. Returns would take place in a dignified manner by reinforcing provisions

on voluntary return and by encouraging reintegration and promoting the use of counselling. By

introducing a system of obligations and incentives, the identified way forward would increase

returnees’ ownership of their trajectory.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Annex I – Stakeholder consultations

Broad stakeholder consultations on the future return legislation have taken place to gather

views and concrete suggestions from Member States, European Institutions, international

organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society, research entities, and

third countries working on, or with experience in the subject of returns. The consultations have

allowed the Commission to gather updated information and address possible gaps in the current

return legislation.

Meetings

Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum Consultations,

10 April 2024.

COREPER II – Towards a more assertive return policy,

16 September 2024.

Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum Consultations,

27 September

2024.

MPI Europe and UNHCR – Beyond the Pact: Addressing Maritime Arrivals and

Strengthening Return,

8 October 2024.

JHA Council – Enhancing the effectiveness of EU’s return policy,

10 October 2024.

Workshop on Comprehensive Decisions and Last-minute Asylum applications,

22 October

2024.

Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum Consultations,

1 November

2024.

Meeting on EU return policies between COM and Civil Society (PICUM, JRS Belgium,

Caritas EU and EuroMed Rights),

19 November 2024.

Meeting with the Netherlands on the future return legislation,

20 January 2025.

Meeting with Sweden on the future return legislation,

22 January 2025.

Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum Consultations,

13 February

2025.

Papers and non-papers from Member States

Spain,

Non-paper on Key priorities for Spain regarding a new legislative framework on

returns – forced return aspects,

22 January 2024.

Denmark,

Non-paper on a more effective return system,

March 2024.

Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway and Lichtenstein,

Non-paper on the

need for legislative reforms for more effective returns,

8 March 2024.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Denmark and other Member States

101

Joint Letter on New Solutions to address irregular

migration to Europe,

15 May 2024.

Austria and the Netherlands,

Non-paper on Objectives for a New Legislative Proposal for

More Effective Returns,

4 October 2024.

102

Revision of the legislative framework on return,

9 December 2024.

Germany,

Proposal on a New version of the Return Directive,

16 December 2024.

Germany,

Suggestions for reform of the Return Directive,

10 January 2025.

France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden,

Non-paper on Concerns about the idea of

mandatory mutual recognition of return decisions,

24 January 2025.

Netherlands,

Non-paper on Required legislative reforms for more effective returns.

Denmark,

Priorities for a new upcoming act on return.

Czech Republic,

Preliminary suggestions for the new Return Directive.

European Parliament Research Service:

European Parliamentary Research Service,

The proposed Return Directive (recast),

Substitute Impact Assessment,

EPRS Study, February 2019.

European Parliamentary Research Service,

The Return Directive 2008/115/EC: An

Overview of its Implementation,

EPRS Study, PE 631.727, June 2019.

European Parliamentary Research Service,

The Return Directive 2008/115/EC: European

Implementation Assessment,

EPRS Study, PE 642.840, June 2020.

European Parliamentary Research Service, The proposed Return Directive (recast),

Substitute Impact Assessment, EPRS Study, February 2019.

Papers and comments from different stakeholders:

Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM),

Position

paper on EU Return Directive,

April 2015.

Swedish Red Cross,

Asylum Application Rejected – Return: Results and Challenges

2008–2015,

2016.

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE),

Policy Note 09: Return – No Safety in

Numbers: ECRE's Analysis of Recent Developments in EU Policy on Return of Migrants,

2017.

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE),

Policy Note 13: Voluntary Departure

and Return: Between a Rock and a Hard Place,

August 2018.

101

102

BG, CZ, EE, EL, IT, CY, LT, LV, MT, NL, AT, PL, RO and FI.

Supported by CH, CZ, DE, DK, EL, FI, FR, HR, IT, LI, LU, MT, NO, PL, SE and SK.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Caritas Europa,

Position Paper on Human Rights and Human Dignity at the centre in

return policies,

9 February 2018.

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE),

ECRE Comments on the Commission

Proposal for a Recast Return Directive,

November 2018.

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE),

Policy Note 19: Return Policy:

Desperately Seeking Evidence and Balance,

July 2019.

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE),

Policy Note 17: Protection in

Afghanistan: The Impact of Ongoing Conflict and Security Risks on Returns,

February

2019.

ACT Alliance EU; Caritas Europa; European Federation of the Community of

Sant'Egidio; CCME – Churches' Commission for Migrants in Europe; ICMC –

International Catholic Migration Commission; COMECE – Commission of the Bishops'

Conferences of the European Community (Secretariat); JRS-Europe – Jesuit Refugee

Service Europe; Protestant Church in Germany (EKD); Don Bosco International; QCEA

– Quaker Council for European Affairs,

Comments on the European Commission’s

proposal for a recast of the Return Directive (COM(2018) 634 FINAL),

7 February 2019.

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE),

CCBE Comments on the

Commission Proposal for a Directive on Common Standards and Procedures in Member

States for Returning Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals,

29 March 2019.

UNICEF, the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR); the International Organization for

Migration (IOM); Save the Children; the Platform for International Cooperation on

Undocumented Migrants (PICUM); the European Council for Refugees and Exiles

(ECRE) and Child Circle,

Guidance to respect children’s rights in return policies and

practices,

September 2019.

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE),

Policy Note 26: Return as “Non-

Essential Travel” in the Time of Pandemic,

June 2020.

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE),

Policy Note 35: The JDMC:

Deporting People to the World’s Least Peaceful Country - ECRE’s Analysis of the Joint

Declaration on Migration Cooperation (JDMC) Between the EU and Afghanistan

March 2021.

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE),

Policy Note 42: Monitoring the

Implementation of Returns: A Complex Puzzle with Missing Pieces,

December 2022.

Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM),

Immigration Detention and De Facto Detention: What Does the Law Say?,

September

2022.

Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM),

FAQ: Non-

Refoulement in the Context of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum,

December 2023.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

ACT Alliance and other civil society organisations

103

Joint letter on deleting the

reference to readmission as a conditionality in the draft GSP reform,

27 February 2023.

Caritas Europa,

What's Wrong with the EU's Pact on Migration?,

10 April 2024.

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE),

ECRE Comments on the Regulation

of the European Parliament and of the Council on Asylum and Migration Management,

Amending Regulations (EU) 2021/1147 and (EU) 2021/1060 and Repealing Regulation

(EU) No 604/2013,

May 2024.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),

Strengthening Protection

and Solutions in the Context of Mixed Movements of Refugees and Migrants,

June 2024.

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE),

Comments on the Directive (EU)

2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 laying down

standards for the reception of applicants for international protections (recast),

September

2024.

Finding Agreement in Return (FAiR),

Working Paper: Legal Review of Fundamental

Rights in Return processes,

30 September 2024.

Hungary,

Presidency Paper: Towards a more assertive return policy,

2 October 2024.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Migration Policy

Institute (MPI Europe),

Beyond the Pact: Addressing maritime arrivals and strengthening

returns,

8 October 2024.

Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM),

FAQ:

Reporting Obligations and ‘Firewalls’,

November 2024.

11.11.11 and other civil society organisations

104

EU Leaders should uphold right to

asylum in Europe,

12 November 2024.

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE),

Statement on recent developments

and upcoming EU actions in the field of asylum,

21 November 2024.

Meijers Committee,

Comment on the Recast of the EU Return Directive,

December 2024.

103

EU Anti-Slavery International, Brot für die Welt, CARE International, Caritas Europa, Caritas International

Belgium, Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe, Clean Clothes Campaign - International Office, CSW,

Danish Refugee Council, European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), European Evangelical Alliance,

GSP Platform, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), International Federation

of ACAT (FIACAT), Migration Policy Group, Terre des hommes Deutschland e.V., Quaker Council for European

Affairs (QCEA) and Oxfam.

104

ActionAid International, AGDDS, Amnesty International, Asociación Rumiñahui, Bedsteforældre for Asyl,

Brot für die Welt, CARE Denmark, Caritas Europa, CCFD-Terre Solidaire, Centre for Peace Studies, CGIL,

Christian Council of Norway, Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME), Ciré, CNCD-11.11.11

(BE), Danish Refugee Council, Danish United Nations Association / FN-forbundet, Dutch Council for Refugees,

Ellebæk Kontaktnetværk / Ellekbaek Contactnetwork, EuroMed Rights, Europe Cares e.V., European Network on

Statelessness, Federation of Protestant Churches in Italy (FCEI), Finnish Refugee Advice Centre, Finnish Refugee

Council, Fundacja Inicjatywa Dom Otwarty, Grandparents for Asylum, Kongelunden, Greek Council for Refugees

(GCR), Human Rights Legal Project, Human Rights Watch, International Rescue Committee, Irídia - Centre for

the Defence of Human Rights, JRS Europe, Lysfest for Humanisme, Migration Consortium, MISSION LIFELINE

International e.V., Movement for Peace (MPDL), Novact, Oxfam EU, r42-SailAndRescue, Red Acoge, Refugees

International, Refugees Welcome – Denmark, RESQSHIP, Right to Protection, SOLIDAR, and SOS Humanity.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE),

Remarks with regard to the

upcoming Commission new proposal for a Return Directive,

December 2024.

Finding Agreement in Return (FAiR),

Improved Return Monitoring Guidelines,

December 2024.

Protestant Church in Germany,

Letter on New common approach on returns –

Independent return monitoring mechanism,

21 January 2025.

Danish Refugee Council (DRC),

Ensuring safe and dignified return of asylum seekers,

January 2025.

Amnesty International,

Key considerations in the context of the upcoming revision to the

EU legislative framework on returns,

23 January 2025.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),

Key considerations for the

return of rejected asylum seekers,

29 January 2025.

Migration Policy Institute (MPI Europe),

No One-Size-Fits-All: Outreach and

Counselling for Irregular Migrants,

January 2025.

Swedish Red Cross,

Report on Children in immigration detention.

Swedish Red Cross,

Diversion from Immigration Detention: A Study on Alternatives to

Detention and the Effects of Deprivation of Liberty.

International Detention Coalition (IDC),

Tech and ATD: The use of digital technologies in

Alternatives to Detention,

2025.

Convive Fundación Cepaim,

Europe Consultation on digital tech in alternatives to

immigration detention (ATD), 2025.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Annex II – EMN meetings, informs and studies

Meetings

22nd REG Plenary Meeting (Copenhagen, Denmark),

and 26

February 2019.

Workshop on the development of an EU Framework on return counselling,

April

2019.

Workshop on the development of an EU Framework on return counselling,

May

2019.

23rd REG Plenary Meeting (Helsinki, Finland),

and 12

June 2019.

Workshop on the development of an EU Framework on return counselling,

and

July 2019.

24th REG Plenary Meeting (Vienna, Austria),

September 2019.

25th REG Plenary Meeting (Oslo, Norway),

and 7

February 2020.

2nd Expert workshop on Representatives of Detention Centres (Luxembourg),

February 2020.

Advanced workshop on ‘Information Management on the Application of the Principle

of Non-Refoulement in Asylum and Return Procedures’,

March 2020.

26th REG Plenary Meeting (Online),

June 2020.

Workshop on Data Protection in the field of return,

July 2020.

Workshop to validate the final text of the EU framework on return counselling,

September 2020.

Workshop on ‘Effective Elements of reintegration’,

and 23

September 2020.

27th REG Plenary Meeting (Online),

and 6

November 2020.

Webinar on ‘Alternatives to detention: A state of play’,

December 2020.

28th REG Plenary Meeting (Online),

February 2021.

Thematic expert group on RIAT,

April 2021.

Thematic expert workshop on implementation of data protection regulation in

international data transfers,

May 2021.

29th REG Plenary Meeting (Online),

June 2021.

Thematic expert workshop on returning vulnerable persons,

July 2021.

Thematic expert workshop on return of unaccompanied children,

September

2021.

Thematic expert workshop on return of families with children,

September 2021.

Thematic expert workshop on return of victims of trafficking,

October 2021.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

Thematic expert workshop on return of migrants with medical conditions,

October 2021.

30th REG Plenary Meeting (Online),

and 27

October 2021.

31st REG Plenary Meeting (Online),

and 16

February 2022.

32nd REG Plenary Meeting (Brussels, Belgium),

and 29

June 2022.

EMN-REG: 4th thematic workshop on Directors of detention centres (hosted by EMN

LU),

and 28

September.

EMN-REG Workshop: Cooperation with third countries on return procedures

(Norway),

and 28

October 2022.

EMN-REG: thematic workshop on return of vulnerable groups: individuals with

medical conditions (Hosted by EMN NL),

and 11

November 2022.

33rd REG Plenary meeting (Brussels, Belgium),

December 2022.

34th REG Plenary meeting (Bratislava, Slovakia),1

February 2023.

EMN-REG-Frontex workshop on return and reintegration counselling (Sweden),

April 2022.

EMN-REG expert workshop on Effective Alternatives to Detention (Cyprus),

and

June 2023.

35th REG Plenary meeting (Online),

June 2023.

5th Workshop of Representatives of Detention Centres,

and 21

September 2023.

36th REG Plenary meeting (Tallinn, Estonia),

and 8

November 2023.

EMN-REG workshop on cooperation with third countries in return (Norway),

and

November 2023.

EMN-REG workshop on multistakeholder governance (Belgium),

and 6

December 2023.

37th REG Plenary meeting (Paris, France),

and 28

February 2024.

EMN-REG-Prague process workshop on the value of return and reintegration support

(Larnaca, Cyprus),

and 19

June 2024.

38th REG Plenary meeting (online),

July 2024.

6th Workshop of Representatives of Detention Centres,

and 26

September 2024.

EMN-REG workshop on Reintegration, referrals and reintegration systems in third

countries (an EU-perspective) (Oslo, Norway),

and 8

November 2024.

39th REG Plenary meeting (online),

December 2024.

EMN-REG workshop on RIAT (Brussels, Belgium),

December 2024.

EMN-REG workshop on Return centers (online),

December 2024.

kom (2025) 0101 - Ingen titel

EMN-REG workshop on Return counselling approaches for migrants with

psychosocial issues (online),

December 2024.

REG Inform (or equivalent analytical output)