The European Commission has proposed a new regulation on the return of third-country nationals staying irregularly in the EU, commonly known as the return regulation. The stated objectives are to increase the EU’s return rate and to harmonise return procedures across member states. However, the proposal raises serious concerns about its effectiveness and its impact on fundamental rights.

A more complex and fragmented system

Rather than streamlining return procedures, the proposal introduces a system that is more complex, bureaucratic, and potentially costly. While aiming for harmonisation, it allows member states to apply national legal frameworks in several areas, undermining the creation of a truly common EU return system.

Increased risks for people in return procedures

The proposed regulation contains several provisions that risk weakening protections for individuals:

• Broader grounds for return: return would be possible not only to a person’s country of origin but also to other third countries, even without consent

• Legal basis for external return hubs: member states would be allowed to establish return centres in non-EU countries based on bilateral agreements or arrangements

• Expanded criteria for “risk of absconding”: vague and broadly defined criteria could justify detention or the denial of voluntary return, leading to the risk of systematic use of detention

• Reduced appeal safeguards: extremely short deadlines and the removal of automatic suspensive effect mean people could be deported before their appeal is heard

From voluntary return to forced return as default

The regulation also imposes new restrictions on voluntary departure, including the elimination of a guaranteed minimum period and the imposition of cooperation requirements. These changes shift the focus of EU return policy toward forced return as the default, despite long-standing evidence that voluntary return is more sustainable, cost-effective, and respectful of human dignity.
This shift away from rights-based and humane procedures in favour of enforcement measures may undermine trust, increase the likelihood of absconding, and ultimately reduce the effectiveness of return policies.

A more effective and rights-based alternative

Rather than investing in detention and deportation systems, a more sustainable approach would involve:

• Strengthening asylum systems to ensure timely and fair access to protection

• Making greater use of national legal statuses, both protection-related and non-protection-related

• Facilitating regularisation pathways for people already integrated or with ties to the EU

• Aligning return policies with labour market needs and long-term integration strategies
  These measures would allow for a more strategic and cost-effective response while respecting fundamental rights.

The need for transparency and impact assessment

The lack of an impact assessment, justified on the basis of urgency, is increasingly common in EU asylum and migration reforms. Yet this practice weakens legal accountability and results in policy proposals with far-reaching implications that have not been properly evaluated.
Conclusion: the return regulation, as proposed, risks undermining rights, expanding detention, and creating greater legal uncertainty—without clear evidence that it will improve return rates. A rights-based and sustainable approach is not only more humane, but also more effective in the long term.