Establishing a common system for the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the Union

Key points

The EESC:

• emphasises that any EU return policy must be founded on a clear human rights-centredjustification and calls for a comprehensive impact assessment taking into account binding obligations under international and European human rights law;

• regrets that the regulation is not embedded in a broader strategy to promote legal and safe migration pathways. Without genuine alternatives, return procedures will remain ineffective and reinforce exclusion, surveillance and containment;

• highlights this proposal’s lack of a robust ex ante impact assessment. As this regulation is affecting the lives of millions of people, serious research and structured consultations with specialised bodies and CSOs would have been necessary;

• underlines the need to establish effective, independent and transparent monitoring mechanisms to oversee compliance, including control over return practices, detentionconditions and the conduct of competent authorities;

• reiterates that return should primarily occur on a voluntary basis. This principle must remain the cornerstone of EU return policy, with forced return considered only as a last resort;

• warns that the proposal may lead to a serious erosion of migrants’ rights and undermine the rule of law, e.g., it deems detention grounds excessively broad, the definition of ‘risk of absconding’ vague, and urges the EU to significantlynarrow these provisions;

• insists on binding human rights standards to avoid returns to situations where individuals might face serious harm or rights violations;

• does not support returns to countries other than to the country of origin. If return is not possible to the country of origin, regardless of the reason, return procedures should be suspended;

• strongly opposes the creation or maintenance of ‘return hubs’, warning that they are incompatible with EU and international legal obligations;

• considers that the regulation fails to adequately address the immigration detention of children. This practice should be eliminated, according to the international human rights standards.