New EU deportation rules face massive criticism

The desire to send more unwanted people out of the EU is leading to increasingly inhumane methods, which could also have an impact in Denmark

On 11 March 2025, the European Commission presented a proposal for a new regulation on the return of third-country nationals, named the “EU Return Regulation”. It goes even further than the EU’s new migration and asylum pact which was adopted last year, and which contains frightening prospects for asylum seekers in all ways – read our article on the EU’s new pact here.

If the proposal is adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, the new regulation will replace the current legislation, the so-called Return Directive, which applies in Denmark. As an extension of the Schengen cooperation, the proposed reform could therefore also apply in Denmark, if this is decided by the Danish parliament. Despite the Danish opt-out, Denmark will thus be covered by the EU return rules, which – as explained in more detail below – may give rise to serious legal and human rights concerns.

The aim of the new regulation is to ensure a faster, simpler and more effective return of people who are not legally residing in the EU. It is estimated that only 20% of return decisions are actually implemented today, which is why the new regulation introduces stricter rules to “limit abuse and prevent people from disappearing from the system”. The reasons why it is often difficult or impossible to return rejected asylum seekers to their home country are described in more detail in the report “A firm hand”, which Refugees Welcome published in 2021.

The new regulation has been criticized by, among others, Amnesty International, the Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice and PICUM, who have called the proposal a step towards a dystopian regime of deprivation of liberty and deportation. The Danish Refugee Council has published a Policy Brief, in which the restriction on voluntary return is particularly criticized. In the following we provide an overview of the main elements of the proposal.

Content of the proposal

The proposal contains the following new measures:

Return to a third country (return hubs)
The proposal paves the way for the establishment of so-called “return hubs”, i.e. deportation centres outside the EU, provided that an agreement or arrangement on return has been concluded with the country in question. The proposal for the new regulation also expands the number of countries to which rejected asylum seekers can be returned against their will, beyond their country of origin. According to PICUM, of which Refugees Welcome is a member, this will entail a risk of arbitrary and automatic deprivation of liberty, limited monitoring of human rights and the risk of chain deportations to unsafe countries.
 
The introduction of a new common “European Return Order” (ERO)
The introduction of the ERO means that if a person receives a return decision in one Member State and travels on to another Member State, the other Member State must recognise and enforce the original decision and arrange for the return from the EU. Until now, the Dublin Regulation has placed the responsibility for return on the Member State that made the decision.

Restriction of the possibility of voluntary return
The Commission has so far taken the view that the most humane solution, which is voluntary departure, should always be preferred. As opposed to this, the new proposal restricts the possibility of voluntary departure. The proposal removes the minimum period during which an asylum seeker can voluntarily choose to leave and instead introduces a maximum period for voluntary return of 30 days. The possibility of voluntary return will also require the person to comply with a wide range of cooperation obligations.
 
Extension of the basis for detention
The maximum duration of detention is extended from 18 months in detention centres, cf. the EU's current Return Directive, to up to 24 months. Even after 24 months, other coercive measures, such as electronic monitoring, can continue to be used. Children are no longer exempt from detention.

Entry ban
Persons who have been issued with a return decision are subject to an entry ban throughout the Schengen area for up to 10 years. Today, an entry ban can be issued for a maximum of 5 years.
 
Weakening access to justice
In terms of legal certainty, the proposal weakens procedural guarantees, especially in cases of “emergency”. Deadlines for appeals will be shortened, practical access to legal aid will be restricted and the suspensive effect of appeals will no longer be automatic in all cases. This means that people could risk being deported before their appeal has been processed. The proposal will also limit the possibilities to stay in the EU for reasons other than asylum, including humanitarian reasons, family ties, etc.

Criticism of the proposal

According to PICUM, this proposal was rushed through under political pressure without meaningful involvement of civil society. Four EU-funded research projects on irregular migration have issued a joint statement in which they distance themselves from the Commission’s claim that the proposal is based on their research. The researchers stress that they were not consulted and that several of the measures in the proposal directly contradict their research findings.
 
According to Amnesty International, the proposal represents a new low point in the EU’s treatment of migrants. The initiative on third-country removal centres was rejected by the EU Commission back in 2018. Despite this, the proposal allows member states to detain people in third-country removal centres to which they have no connection, without credible guarantees that their rights will be respected. Several human rights organisations across Europe have warned against the measures on which the new proposal is based, as these measures are likely to lead to serious human rights violations, including refoulement and arbitrary detention. The proposal for a new return policy reflects a worrying direction that the EU Commission has taken in relation to asylum and migration. Expanding the use of force and coercion rarely leads to anything good.

Swedish MEP Alice Bah Kuhnke has, among others, criticized the so-called “return hubs” and stressed that they are completely unrealistic in practice, as such centers would be extremely expensive, both financially and in terms of human suffering for those whose rights would be restricted. According to Kuhnke, removal centers in third countries are not a solution to the EU’s migration problem, but rather “populism to satisfy the far right”.

It is difficult to imagine that a country would agree to receive all rejected asylum seekers from the EU and arrange for their individual return without committing massive human rights violations and taking a huge pay cut. Denmark's and Britain's attempts to set up reception centres in Rwanda have so far failed, and Australia's agreement with the island states of Manus and Nauru was stopped when it finally became obvious that it was insanely expensive and a human disaster. The planned Danish prison in Kosovo also contains a long list of problematic human rights issues and will be very costly to implement.