The European Union is seeking to increase the effectiveness of returning people who have no legal right to remain on its territory. New rules awaiting formal approval are intended to streamline return procedures, make it easier for member states to recognise each other’s return decisions and allow the establishment of so-called return hubs in non-EU countries.
The proposals have received mixed reactions from members of the European Parliament. Some argue that the EU needs more effective tools to enforce return decisions while respecting fundamental rights. Others warn that the system could prove expensive, logistically difficult and heavily dependent on cooperation from third countries.
According to Eurostat data, almost 720,000 non-EU citizens were found to be staying illegally in the European Union in 2025. This was 21.7% fewer than in 2024.
More than 132,000 people were refused entry at the EU’s external borders, an increase of 7.1% year on year. More than 491,000 non-EU citizens were ordered to leave the bloc, while over 135,000 were returned to another country. These figures were respectively 5.8% and 20.9% higher than in 2024.
Turkish, Georgian, Syrian, Albanian and Russian citizens were among the largest groups returned to non-EU countries. According to the Council of the European Union, most returns are currently carried out voluntarily.
European Return Order to support enforcement
“Until now, the European Union’s legislation concerning returns has not been effective enough,” Michał Wawrykiewicz, a Civic Coalition member of the European Parliament affiliated with the European People’s Party, told the Newseria news agency.
“The regulation recently approved by the European Parliament introduces solutions intended to increase the effectiveness of EU institutions in dealing with people staying illegally in the European Union. These include the European Return Order, a new instrument designed to ensure that such a person is effectively removed from EU territory,” he said.
According to Wawrykiewicz, the new rules are also intended to prevent people subject to return procedures from moving between member states to avoid enforcement by national authorities.
At the beginning of June, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament reached an agreement on a common procedure for returning people who are staying illegally in member states.
The legislation complements the EU Migration and Asylum Pact and is intended to support its implementation. The negotiated agreement was subsequently approved by the European Parliament and now requires formal adoption by the Council.
One of the main instruments introduced under the legislation is the European Return Order, or ERO. It will take the form of a standardised document containing the key elements of a national return decision.
The system is intended to make it easier for one member state to recognise and enforce a return decision issued by another. The mutual recognition mechanism will initially not be mandatory.
“Uniform return rules can be implemented,” Wawrykiewicz said. “This was a very long and difficult negotiation process, covering both the wording of the regulation and its practical dimension — in other words, how to organise the system so that it can work effectively.”
New obligations and stronger enforcement powers
The regulation imposes a number of obligations on people who do not have the right to remain in the EU. These include leaving the relevant member state and cooperating with national authorities during the return procedure.
Sanctions may be imposed on people who fail to comply with these obligations. The legislation also introduces stricter provisions for individuals considered to pose a serious security threat.
According to the European Parliament, national authorities will be able to carry out certain investigative measures in order to prepare or secure an effective return, provided they have obtained judicial or administrative authorisation.
Such measures could include searching a non-EU citizen, their place of residence or their electronic devices.
Return hubs outside the European Union
The new law will also allow member states to establish return hubs in third countries for people who do not have the right to remain in the EU.
These facilities could operate either as final destinations or as transfer centres intended to facilitate a person’s return to their country of origin.
Return hubs would be established under agreements or arrangements concluded between an EU member state and a third country. Such cooperation would only be permitted with countries that respect international human rights standards and international law.
Unaccompanied minors would be excluded from agreements involving return hubs.
“The fundamental rule included in this regulation is respect for the principle of non-refoulement,” Wawrykiewicz said.
“Every person staying illegally in the European Union may only be returned to a place where human rights protection standards are respected. As an international organisation, we observe human rights and standards protecting civil liberties. We cannot return even irregular migrants to places where those standards are not met.”
He stressed that return hubs would therefore have to operate in locations that guarantee adequate protection of fundamental rights.
Concerns over costs and logistics
Not all members of the European Parliament are convinced that the new system will deliver the expected results.
Tomasz Buczek, a Confederation MEP, said the rules represented a step in the right direction but warned that their implementation would involve substantial costs, diplomatic negotiations and logistical challenges.
“The new rules will be difficult to implement and will involve major financial burdens, as well as an extensive diplomatic process involving the countries to which we want to carry out readmissions,” Buczek told Newseria.
“The entire procedure is a step in the right direction, but it is still too early to speak of any success. I am concerned that this may simply be an attempt to create the impression that Europe is taking an anti-immigration position, while the instruments themselves remain ineffective because their implementation will be too expensive.”
In his view, the common European return system is necessary but overdue. Although it creates instruments that could help reverse migration trends, it will remain dependent on cooperation from third countries.
“We must create the right conditions,” Buczek said. “First, we need to find funding. Second, we need the cooperation of the countries to which people will be returned, and those countries are often opposed to accepting returns. Third, this will be an enormous logistical operation.”
He argued that even if the EU managed to return 50 people by air every day, completing the process could take seven or eight years.
“These are large-scale procedures involving significant financial burdens,” he said.
Debate over the effectiveness of the system
Anna Bryłka, another Confederation MEP, described the vote on the regulation as one of the most important decisions taken during the current parliamentary term.
She pointed out that only around 20% of people denied the right to stay in the EU currently leave its territory in practice.
Bryłka described the adoption of the regulation as an important achievement for the Patriots for Europe group, which has pushed for a stricter European migration policy.
“The European People’s Party is trying to adapt to our narrative,” she said. “At the same time, in my assessment, the entire policy is moving too slowly and the instruments remain insufficient to actually stop the migration process.”
She expressed concern that the system could be used primarily to demonstrate to voters that mainstream European parties were taking a tougher approach to migration, without creating tools capable of delivering large-scale returns.
Bryłka also criticised Spain’s decision to introduce an exceptional regularisation procedure for migrants already living in the country.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced the measure in April, with the government arguing that the legalisation programme was needed to support the country’s economy.
Bryłka warned that people legalised in Spain could subsequently move across Europe, making future return procedures more difficult.
Balancing enforcement with human rights
Supporters of the regulation argue that the EU must respond to public concerns while continuing to comply with international law and human rights obligations.
“Citizens of the European Union want to feel safe and to know that only people who have a legal right of residence are staying in the EU,” Wawrykiewicz said.
“Everyone who is staying here illegally should leave the territory of the Union, and EU institutions should have the instruments necessary to carry out that procedure effectively.”
He argued that the regulation responds to public expectations while remaining consistent with EU treaties, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Union’s legal and ethical principles.
“This expectation is not being implemented in a hateful way, as promoted by populist right-wing groups, but in a civilised and lawful manner,” Wawrykiewicz said.
The regulation will enter into force after it has been formally adopted by the Council of the EU and published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Some provisions, including those relating to return hubs, are expected to apply immediately. Other parts of the regulation will become applicable after a 12-month transition period.
