A key committee of the European Parliament has adopted its position on proposed reforms to the European Union’s rules governing the return of non-EU nationals who are staying in the bloc illegally.
The European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee approved amendments to the European Commission’s proposal to overhaul EU return procedures by 41 votes in favour, 32 against and one abstention. The proposal, originally presented by the Commission in March 2025, aims to streamline and strengthen deportation procedures across the EU.
Under the draft legislation, national authorities would be required to issue a return decision to any non-EU national found to be staying illegally in a member state. The decision would oblige the individual to leave the country concerned.
Return decisions would be formalised through a “European return order” and shared across the Schengen area via the Schengen Information System. By 1 July 2027, all EU countries would be required to recognise and enforce return decisions and removal orders issued by other member states. Responsibility for carrying out the return would remain with the country where the individual is found to be staying illegally.
MEPs stressed that the regulation must continue to respect core national responsibilities, including safeguarding territorial integrity, maintaining law and order and protecting national security.
During the negotiations, lawmakers removed a provision from the Commission’s proposal that would have obliged member states to implement measures aimed specifically at detecting irregular migrants within their territory.
Obligation to cooperate
Under the proposed rules, non-EU nationals subject to a return decision would be required to cooperate with authorities and could be offered the option of voluntary return.
However, detention could be used to ensure effective removal in certain circumstances, including where individuals refuse to cooperate, pose a risk of absconding, represent a security risk or otherwise hinder the return process. Detention decisions would be governed by national law and ordered by administrative or judicial authorities.
The legislation allows detention for up to 24 months. In exceptional circumstances, this could also apply to unaccompanied minors or families with children, though only as a last resort, for the shortest possible period and taking into account the best interests of the child.
Member states would also be able to use alternatives to detention, such as mandatory reporting, residence requirements, financial guarantees or electronic monitoring.
Agreements with third countries
The country of return would depend on individual circumstances, including the migrant’s country of origin, the country through which they transited before entering the EU, or a “safe third country”.
The proposal also allows returns to countries that agree to accept individuals through agreements concluded either with an EU member state or the EU itself. However, unaccompanied minors could not be transferred under such arrangements.
Entry bans and monitoring
Under the proposed framework, individuals who fail to comply with a return decision, are forcibly removed, or are considered a security risk would be issued with an EU-wide entry ban. The duration of such bans would depend on the circumstances of each case and could be permanent where a person is deemed to pose a security threat.
MEPs also backed the creation of independent monitoring mechanisms to ensure that fundamental rights are respected during removal operations.
Next steps in the legislative process
Following the committee vote, the European Parliament as a whole must approve the decision to begin negotiations with EU member states in the Council. These interinstitutional talks, known as trilogues, will determine the final form of the legislation.
Malik Azmani, the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the file, said the committee vote marked an important step toward a workable system.
“Today, the Civil Liberties Committee adopted its position,” he said after the vote. “As rapporteur, it has always been my goal to reach an efficient and workable regulation in a timely manner. This outcome provides the basis for the next steps, and we will now move forward towards the trilogue negotiations.”
