On 11 March 2025, the European Commission unveiled a controversial proposal for a new EU Return Regulation, aimed at streamlining deportations of third-country nationals who lack legal status in the EU. This proposal builds on and even expands the scope of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, which has already drawn criticism for its harsh treatment of asylum seekers.
If adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, the regulation would replace the existing EU Return Directive. Despite Denmark’s opt-out on EU justice and home affairs matters, the proposed legislation may still apply to Denmark through its Schengen cooperation framework—if endorsed by the Danish Parliament. This raises urgent questions about compliance with human rights standards in both Denmark and across the EU.
Stricter Rules to Enforce Faster Deportations
The primary goal of the new EU deportation rules is to make the removal of irregular migrants more efficient, reducing bureaucratic delays and increasing the percentage of enforced return decisions—which currently stands at a mere 20%. According to the European Commission, the Return Regulation will introduce tighter restrictions to reduce “system abuse” and prevent individuals from “disappearing” before removal can take place.
Critics argue that these justifications are being used to justify more aggressive and punitive measures. Asylum experts and human rights defenders warn that this shift prioritizes enforcement over protection, criminalizing vulnerable individuals who are often fleeing war, persecution, or unsafe conditions.
Strong Backlash from Rights Groups and NGOs
The proposal has been strongly condemned by a wide range of international human rights organizations and migration advocacy groups, including:
- Amnesty International
- PICUM (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants)
- Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice
- Danish Refugee Council
These organizations have voiced serious concerns that the regulation represents a “dystopian” step toward mass detention and deportation, with fewer safeguards, reduced access to voluntary return, and increased risks of unlawful expulsions.
The Danish Refugee Council, in particular, highlights the proposal’s undermining of voluntary return options in its recent Policy Brief, which challenges the ethics and legality of coercive migration enforcement policies.
A legal expert can assess your case, explain your rights, and help you appeal or resolve unjust alerts that could otherwise impact your mobility across Europe. Consider scheduling a consultation.
What’s in the New EU Deportation Proposal? Key Measures Raising Alarms
The EU Return Regulation proposal, presented by the European Commission in March 2025, introduces sweeping changes to how the European Union handles deportations. Human rights groups argue that the regulation undermines legal safeguards and expands state powers to remove third-country nationals—whether or not they are returned to a safe environment.
Here’s an overview of the key changes proposed:
1. Return to Third Countries via “Return Hubs”
One of the most controversial elements is the creation of so-called “return hubs”—deportation centres located outside the EU. These would be established in third countries that have signed readmission agreements with the EU.
The proposal would also allow forced return of rejected asylum seekers to countries other than their country of origin. According to PICUM, this introduces a serious risk of arbitrary detention, human rights violations, and chain deportations to unsafe or unstable regions—where individuals may face persecution, torture, or lack of protection.
2. European Return Order (ERO): EU-Wide Deportation Enforcement
The proposal introduces a common “European Return Order” (ERO). This would require all EU Member States to recognize and enforce deportation decisions issued by any other Member State.
This change eliminates the current system under the Dublin Regulation, which places return responsibility only on the state that issued the original decision. Under the new ERO, someone refused in one country can be detained and deported from another without a new legal process.
3. Severe Restriction of Voluntary Return Options
Historically, the European Commission has promoted voluntary return as the most humane approach to migration enforcement. However, this proposal dramatically limits the opportunity to leave voluntarily:
- It abolishes the minimum period for voluntary departure.
- Sets a strict maximum of 30 days to leave voluntarily.
- Conditions voluntary return on the individual’s full cooperation with authorities, including sharing documents and attending interviews.
4. Extended Detention Periods and Use of Coercive Measures
Under the new rules, the maximum detention period for those facing deportation would increase from 18 to 24 months. Even after this period ends, authorities could continue surveillance using electronic monitoring or other restrictive measures.
Alarmingly, the proposal removes protections for minors—children would no longer be exempt from immigration detention, sparking outrage from child rights advocates.
5. Stricter and Longer Schengen Entry Bans
The new regulation would also double the maximum duration of an entry ban for those issued a return order—from 5 to 10 years. This entry ban would apply across the entire Schengen Area, severely limiting the affected person’s ability to enter or transit through Europe in the future.
6. Weakened Access to Justice and Appeal Rights
One of the most concerning aspects is the erosion of legal safeguards:
- Shorter appeal deadlines
- Reduced access to legal aid, especially in emergency cases
- Suspensive effect of appeals no longer guaranteed — meaning deportation can happen before an appeal is heard
This could lead to wrongful removals, including individuals with valid humanitarian or family-based grounds to remain in the EU.
You may find value in studying: SIS Alerts and Data: How the Schengen information system works.
Widespread Criticism of the New EU Deportation Proposal
The EU Return Regulation, introduced by the European Commission in 2025, has triggered a wave of criticism from human rights organizations, researchers, and elected officials across Europe. Concerns focus on the lack of transparency, the disregard for expert research, and the potential for serious human rights violations.
Civil Society and Researchers: Excluded and Misrepresented
According to PICUM (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants), the proposal was fast-tracked under political pressure with little to no consultation with civil society or academic researchers.
Four major EU-funded research projects on irregular migration have issued a joint public statement disputing the Commission’s claim that the proposal is based on their findings. These researchers emphasized:
- They were never consulted during the drafting process.
- Several measures in the proposal directly contradict their evidence-based recommendations.
You may find value in studying: Schengen Visa Inequality: Why Some Travelers Face a Heavier Barrier.
Amnesty International: “A New Low” in EU Migration Policy
Amnesty International has described the proposal as a “new low point in the EU’s treatment of migrants”. One of the most heavily criticized elements is the revival of plans for third-country deportation centres, also called “return hubs”—an idea previously rejected by the European Commission in 2018.
Under the new plan, migrants could be detained in countries with which they have no legal or cultural ties, without credible guarantees of human rights protections. Amnesty and other rights groups warn that such facilities pose high risks of:
- Arbitrary detention
- Refoulement (forcible return to unsafe countries)
- Systematic human rights violations
Political Voices Condemn Unrealistic and Inhumane Solutions
Swedish MEP Alice Bah Kuhnke has strongly opposed the concept of return hubs, calling them:
- “Completely unrealistic” in practice
- Financially excessive and ethically troubling
- A “populist tactic to satisfy the far right”, rather than a genuine solution to migration challenges
She and others argue that no third country is likely to accept all rejected asylum seekers from the EU without enormous payments or compromising basic human rights. Past efforts by EU and non-EU states support this conclusion:
- Denmark and the UK’s failed attempts to create asylum processing centres in Rwanda
- Australia’s collapsed agreements with Manus and Nauru, which ended in high costs and humanitarian disasters
- Denmark’s controversial plan to build a prison in Kosovo, now mired in human rights concerns and cost overruns
A Troubling Shift in EU Migration Governance
Critics say the proposal reflects a worrying shift in the European Commission’s approach—one that increasingly emphasizes coercion, detention, and exclusion, rather than human dignity, voluntary return, and protection.
Legal and advocacy groups fear that these policies may erode the EU’s international human rights obligations, undermine asylum systems, and contribute to a climate of fear and marginalization for migrants and asylum seekers.
Let us protect your right to freedom of movement. Contact us today for a personalized consultation