More than 200 Organisations signed: Inhumane Deportation Rules Should be Rejected 

On 11 March 2025, the European Commission presented a new proposal for a Return Regulation to replace the current Return Directive. Behind the euphemistic name, the proposal outlines coercive, traumatising, and rights-violating measures premised on an imperative of increasing deportation rates. Instead of focusing on protection, housing, healthcare and education, the Regulation is premised on punitive policies, detention centres, deportation and enforcement.  

The “Deportation Regulation,” as it would be more aptly called, is part of a broader shift in EU migration policy to characterise human movement as a threat to justify derogations from fundamental rights guarantees. EU institutions and Member States have increasingly made criminalisation, surveillance, and discrimination the default tools of migration governance – as opposed to protection, safety, social inclusion measures, the expansion of safe and regular routes and rights based residence permits. 

Our organisations are unequivocal: this Regulation must be rejected. It is driven by detention, deportation, externalisation, and punishment, particularly of racialised people, and will result in more people being pushed into legal limbo and dangerous conditions. We call on the European Commission to withdraw the proposal and urge the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to reject it in its current form.  

The Regulation must be rejected for the following reasons:   

  1. DEPORTATIONS TO COUNTRIES WITH NO PRIOR TIES AND OFFSHORE DEPORTATION CENTRES (Arts. 4, 17)  

This proposal – together with proposed changes to the Asylum Procedures Regulation – would make it possible, for the first time, to deport a person against their will to a non-EU country to which they have no personal connection, either through which they have only briefly transited, or in which they have never set foot.  

Sending someone against their will to a country to which they have no link can in no way be considered reasonable, just, or sustainable. Such measures would tear apart families and communities across Europe, undermining the fabric of solidarity that people rely on to live with dignity. Expanding the options for “return” raises serious concerns about fundamental rights, including the risk of people being stranded in third countries, the safety and dignity of removal, the sustainability of inclusion and reintegration, and access to support, rights, and services. Such measures also apply to families and children, with limited exceptions. 

The proposed Regulation also enables the establishment of so-called “return hubs”; highly likely to become prison-like detention centres hosting those awaiting deportations, outside of EU territory. This is an egregious departure from international law and human rights standards. These are likely to result in a range of rights violations, including automatic arbitrary detention, direct and indirect refoulement (in return hubs or through onward deportations), and denial of access to legal and procedural safeguards. At the same time, they would reinforce discriminatory practices as well as raising substantial challenges in monitoring human rights conditions and determining legal responsibility and jurisdiction. The current provisions in the Regulation are, moreover, alarmingly vague and set no binding standards, exacerbating these concerns. In line with past attempts to offshore or externalise asylum responsibilities, such as those by Australia, the UK, or Italy, such proposals are likely to be exorbitant in cost, carry significant diplomatic and reputational risks, and widen the gaps and divergences between EU countries’ asylum and migration policies. They would divert resources to punitive modes of migration governance instead of policies prioritising protection, care and safety.  

  1. NEW OBLIGATIONS ON STATES TO ‘DETECT’ AND SURVEIL (Art. 6)   

The proposal requires States to put in place measures to detect people staying irregularly in their territory. Over 80 organisations warned that similar provisions in the 2024 Screening Regulation would result in increased racial profiling and discriminatory treatment. Such provisions pave the way for the expansion of racist policing practices and immigration raids that foster fear in racialised and migrant communities. Moreover, detection measures tied to immigration enforcement create serious human rights risks, including those related to the right to health, labour rights, and human dignity, as fear of authorities discourages undocumented people from seeking healthcare, reporting abuse, or accessing protection. Such measures could raise ethical conflicts for professionals and undermine trust in public services. Finally, they risk threatening privacy rights through the unsafe sharing of sensitive personal data, including health data, breaching EU data protection standards and eroding the freedoms of society as a whole. 

  1. MORE PEOPLE PUSHED INTO IRREGULARITY AND LEGAL LIMBO (Arts. 7, 14)  

The proposal requires states to issue deportation orders alongside any decision ending regular stay, without prior consideration of other national-level status options (such as permits for humanitarian, best interests of the child, medical or family reasons, as well as during statelessness determination procedures or in other cases where deportation is not possible). Combined with similar rules in the Pact on Migration and Asylum that link negative asylum and deportation decisions, this would raise further barriers to accessing national residence permits. Alarmingly, it even foresees issuing deportation orders listing multiple potential countries of return when a country of return cannot be identified. 

The proposal also weakens protections for those who cannot be deported – often through no fault of their own. Although it allows for postponement of “removal” in cases where there is a risk of refoulement, it removes the current requirement to identify and assess other individual circumstances, ignoring that in many cases “return” may not be appropriate or even possible, such as if a person is stateless, or for other human rights reasons. 

This highlights the inconsistency of a proposal developed with the flawed objective of “increasing return rates”, but which at the same time artificially inflates the number of people issued a deportation order. As a result, many more people will be pushed into irregularity and legal limbo, denied basic rights like healthcare, and exposed to destitution, homelessness, exploitation, or prolonged detention. These policies do not only harm individuals: they destabilise and create further fear and insecurity, particularly for migrant and racialised people, as well as the wider communities they are part of. 

  1. SEVERE EXPANSION OF DETENTION (Arts. 29-35)  

The proposal promotes the systematic use of detention by states. It significantly extends the maximum length of detention, from 18 to 24 months. This extension is disproportionate and ineffective, and would only deepen harm to people’s rights, dignity and health. It also expands the grounds for detention, including criteria that, in effect, cover most people who have entered Europe irregularly or who are in an undocumented situation, against the principle of proportionality and necessity. For instance, a lack of documents or experiencing homelessness would be sufficient grounds for detention. The proposal allows for the detention of children, despite international human rights law and standards indicating that it is always a child rights violation and never in a child’s best interests, and global commitment by governments to work to end the practice. Other vulnerable groups, as well as people who cannot be deported, would also be subject to detention. The proposal appears to allow for indefinite detention of individuals deemed to pose “security risks”, by judicial decision. It also allows Member States to deviate from basic guarantees around detention if systems face a vaguely defined “unforeseen heavy burden.” The expansion of detention capacity will create lucrative opportunities for private contractors running detention centres, incentivising the growth of a detention industry at the expense of people’s rights and dignity

The “alternatives to detention”, or non-custodial measures, as proposed by the Commission would not serve their purpose as genuine alternatives, and would not need to be considered before applying detention. Rather, they could now be used in addition to detention and after its time limits have been exceeded. Together, these developments amount to a significant expansion of immigration detention, whereby it would no longer even be treated as a measure of last resort or imposed for the shortest possible time, in clear tension with international law requirements. 

  1. PUNITIVE AND COERCIVE MEASURES (Arts. 10, 12, 13, 16, 22, 29)  

The proposal introduces extensive, disproportionate and unrealistic cooperation requirements on people issued a deportation order, such as having to provide identity documents they may not possess, having their bodies and belongings searched, or cooperating with third countries to obtain travel documents. These are coupled with punitive and heavy sanctions in cases of ‘non-compliance’, including financial penalties, entry bans, restrictions on voluntary departure, as well as refusal of benefits, allowances or work permits. With no effective way to challenge the determination that they are not cooperating sufficiently or to ensure that people are not penalised for circumstances beyond their control – such as statelessness, digital or literacy barriers, age, health or trauma – these measures risk being applied arbitrarily and disproportionately punishing people in vulnerable socio-economic situations.  

The proposal introduces a further shift from “voluntary departure” to “removals”, making deportation the default option. Even though the notion of voluntariness in such circumstances remains questionable, the proposal restricts people’s options and agency further. It does so by introducing broad grounds on which forced “returns” would be mandatory and by removing even the current minimum period of seven days for voluntary departure, or compliance with a deportation order.   

Specific derogations are foreseen for people who “pose a threat to public policy, to public security or to national security” – grounds that are vaguely defined and may be applied abusively. Any cases posing a security risk or concerning a criminal conviction should be dealt with in the context of criminal justice proceedings with the fair trial safeguards required. 

  1. EROSION OF APPEAL RIGHTS (Art. 28)  

In continuity with the erosion of these rights under the Pact, the proposal removes the automatic suspensive effect of appeals against the enforcement of a deportation decision. The suspensive effect will have to be requested together with the appeal, or granted ex-officio. This creates an additional layer of complexity for people at risk of being deported as well as judicial authorities, and removes an essential safeguard to the right to an effective remedy. With no mandatory minimum time for appeals (the proposal specifies only that the deadline shall not exceed 14 days), Member States could make it impossible for people to effectively challenge deportation orders in practice, against the established jurisprudence of European courts.  

  1. EXPANDED DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE AND DATA PROTECTION VIOLATIONS (Arts. 6-9, 23, 38-41)  

The proposal expands the digital surveillance of people in deportation procedures, denounced by digital rights experts and the European Data Protection Supervisor. This includes the broad collection and sharing of personal data, including sensitive health and criminal records, between EU Member States and with third countries which may be lacking adequate data protection. It also enables the use of intrusive surveillance technologies in detention centres, and the use of digital “alternatives to detention”, such as GPS tracking and mobile phone surveillance, which, while supposedly considered an alternative to detention, remain highly intrusive and can amount to de facto detention. Such technologies also create profitable new markets for surveillance companies. 

The creation of a ‘European Return Order’, stored in the Schengen Information System (SIS), further conflates migration management and policing, with foreseen data sharing with law enforcement. There are documented patterns of data abuse and non-compliance with legal standards on privacy and protection of personal data by authorities under SIS, increasing the likelihood of data breaches and misuse.   

  1. LACK OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATIONS  

Like other recent legislative proposals on migration, this European Commission proposal was issued without a human rights impact assessment or formal consultations, including social partners, in an area in which evidence-based policymaking is especially crucial. This is contrary to the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making and the Commission’s own Better Regulation Guidelines when a legislative proposal has significant social impacts and where a choice of policy options exists. A prior fundamental rights impact assessment is essential to ensure compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, non-refoulement, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, personal liberty, the rights of the child, effective remedy, private and family life, privacy and data protection, and non-discrimination.  

  1. OVERLOOKING ALTERNATIVES TO PUNITIVE MIGRATION CONTROL   

The proposal reflects a false assumption that deportation should be the only option for people whose asylum application has been rejected or whose residence permits have expired or been revoked. To reduce the number of people trapped in irregularity, EU states should uphold access to existing human-rights-related permits, and expand avenues to a broad range of residence permits that allow people to plan their lives, engage in regular work, study, and fully participate in all the economic, social, and cultural facets of the societies in which they live.  

We call on the EU to stop catering to racist and xenophobic sentiments and corporate interests and reverse the punitive and discriminatory shift in its migration policy, and instead direct resources towards policies rooted in safety, protection and inclusion, that strengthen communities, uphold dignity, and ensure that all people can live safely regardless of status. 

EU institutions and Member States should reject deportation measures that are based on a punitive and coercive approach, lower human rights standards, and disproportionately affect racialised people. In light of the concerns outlined above, we call on the European Commission to withdraw this proposal and urge the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to reject this proposal
.


SIGNATORIES

International

1. #DiasporaVote!

2. 11.11.11

3. Abolish Frontex

4. Acli – Associazioni cristiane lavoratori italiani

5. Academics for Peace-Germany

6. Access Now

7. ActionAid International

8. Africa Advocacy Foundation

9. AlgoRace

10. All Included

11. Alternatif Bilisim

12. Amnesty International

13. Apna Haq

14. ASAM Greece

15. Aspiration

16. Avocats Sans Frontières (ASF)

17. Border Violence Monitoring Network

18. borderline-europe – Menschenrechte ohne Grenzen e.V.

19. Bridge EU

20. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)

21. CCFD-Terre Solidaire

22. Changemakers Lab

23. Civil Rights Defenders

24. Collective Aid

25. COFACE Families Europe

26. Correlation-European Harm Reduction Network

27. COSPE

28. CPT – Aegean Migrant Solidarity

29. de:border // migration justice collective

30. DeZIM, German Centre for Migration and Integration Research

31. EAPN European Anti-Poverty Network

32. ECCHR European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights

33. ELC – Eurocentralasian Lesbian Community

34. EmpowerVan

35. EPSU

36. Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice

37. EuroMed Rights

38. European Alternatives

39. European Movement

40. European Network Against Racism (ENAR)

41. European Network on Religion & Belief

42. European Network on Religion and Belief

43. European Network on Statelessness

44. Famiglie Accoglienti

45. FEANTSA

46. Fenix Humanitarian Legal Aid

47. Forum per Cambiare l’Ordine delle Cose

48. Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW)

49. Global Asylum Seeker Human Rights Defenders Committee (GASHDC)

50. Hoffnung leben e.V.

51. Human Rights Watch

52. Humanity Diaspo

53. I Have Rights.

54. Inter Alia

55. InterEuropean Human Aid Association Germany e.V.

56. International Planned Parenthood Federation – European Network (IPPF EN)

57. International Women* Space e.V

58. iuventa

59. Kerk in Actie

60. La Strada International

61. Liga Española de la Educación y la Cultura Popular

62. Madera Creation

63. Médecins du Monde International Network

64. Médecins Sans Frontières

65. Mediterranea Bruxelles

66. Mediterranea Saving Humans

67. Migreurop

68. Migration Policy Group (MPG)

69. Missing Voices (REER)

70. Mission Lifeline International eV

71. Movimiento por la Paz (MPDL)

72. Mujeres Supervivientes

73. Mundo en Movimiento

74. Network Against Migrant Detention

75. New Horizons Project

76. New Women Connectors

77. No Name Kitchen

78. Northern Ireland Council for Racial Equality

79. Oxfam

80. Oxfam Italia

81. Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants – PICUM

82. Protestantse Kerk Nederland

83. Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA)

84. Recosol

85. Rete delle Comunità Solidali (Re.co.sol.)

86. Roma Feminist Collective

87. Romnja Feminist Library

88. SCI Catalunya

89. Sea-Watch e.V.

90. Service Civil Internation Austria

91. Service Civil International

92. SOLIDAR

93. SOS Humanity

94. SOS Racism Denmark

95. Spectrum

96. Statewatch

97. Symbiosis-Council of Europe School of Political Studies in Greece

98. Syrian Justice and Accountability Centre

99. Transnational Institute

100. UNESCO Inclusive Policy Lab – People of African Descent & SDGs E-Team

101. Validity Foundation – Mental Disability Advocacy Centre

102. WeMove Europe

103. Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE) Network

104. Yoga and Sport with Refugees

National

105. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Migrationsrecht des Deutschen Anwaltvereins

106. Ariadni AMKE

107. ARSIS Association for the Social Support of Youth

108. ASGI

109. ASKV

110. Asociación Por Ti Mujer

111. Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de Andalucía

112. Association for Integration and Migration (SIMI)

113. Associazione Arturo

114. Associazione Progetto Accoglienza

115. AWO Bundesverband

116. Ban Ying e.V. coordination and counseling center against trafficking in human beings

117. Boat Refugee Foundation

118. Brot für die Welt

119. CEAR – Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado

120. Center for legal aid – Voice in Bulgaria

121. Centre Avec

122. Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD)

123. Centre for Labour Rights, CLR

124. Channel Monitoring Project

125. CIEs NO MADRID

126. CIRÉ

127. CNCA – Coordinamento Nazionale Comunità di Accoglienza

128. CNCD-11.11.11

129. Community Rights in Greece

130. Congolese Anti-Poverty Network

131. CONVIVE Fundación Cepaim

132. coop. soc. APE06 – AlterProjectEmpowerment2006

133. Coordinadora CIE No Cádiz

134. Coordinadora Obrim Fronteres

135. Council of Churches Amsterdam

136. Danes je nov dan, Inštitut za druga vprašanja

137. Diaconaal Centrum De Bakkerij

138. Diakonie Deutschland

139. DIKUNTU ODV

140. Diásporas Association

141. Dutch Council for Refugees

142. ECHO100PLUS

143. Equal Legal Aid

144. Europasilo

145. FairWork

146. Famiglie accoglienti Bologna e Torino

147. FEDERACIÓN ANDALUCIA ACOGE

148. Federación SOS Racismo

149. Feministas en Holanda

150. Finnish Refugee Advice Centre

151. Flüchtlingsrat NRW e.V.

152. Flüchtlingsrat Schleswig-Holstein e.V.

153. forRefugees

154. GAT – Grupo de Ativistas em Tratamentos

155. Greek Council for Refugees (GCR)

156. Greek Forum of Migrants

157. Greek Forum of Refugees

158. Greek Housing Network

159. Hermes Center

160. HOTM

161. Huize Agnes

162. Human Rights Initiatives

163. ICS (Italian Consortium of Solidarity)

164. IHA – Intereuropean Human Aid Association

165. INTERSOS HELLAS

166. Irídia – Centre per la Defensa dels Drets Humans

167. Italy Must Act

168. Jeannette Noëlhuis

169. Jesuit Refugee Service Belgium

170. Jesuit Refugee Service Greece

171. JRS Malta

172. KISA – Action for Equality, Support, Antiracism

173. KOK – German NGO Network against Trafficking in Human Beings

174. Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia (KAAX)

175. La Cimade

176. LDH (Ligue des droits de l’Homme)

177. Legal Centre Lesvos

178. M.oV.I Caltanissetta

179. Meldpunt Vreemdelingendetentie

180. Migrant Rights Centre Ireland

181. Migrant Tales

182. Migrant Voice UK

183. Mobile Info Team

184. MOC

185. Move Coalition

186. Movimento Italiani Senza Cittadinanza

187. Naga Odv

188. Nazione Umana

189. Network for Children’s Rights (Greece)

190. NOF

191. Nomada Association

192. ONE PEOPLE

193. Pauluskerk Rotterdam

194. POUR LA SOLIDARITE

195. PRO ASYL, National Working Group for Refugees

196. Project Armonia

197. Racism and Technology Center

198. RADIO BULLETS APS

199. Red Acoge

200. RED AMINVI, SPAIN

201. RED ESPAÑOLA DE INMIGRACION Y AYUDA AL REFUGIADO

202. Red Interlavapies

203. RECIPROCA ODV

204. Refugee Council of Lower Saxony

205. Refugee Legal Support (RLS)

206. Refugees Platform In Egypt-RPE

207. Refugees Welcome Italia

208. Rotterdams Ongedocumenteerden Steunpunt

209. S.P.E.A.K (moslim woman collectif)

210. SAAMO Antwerpen

211. Salud por Derecho

212. SCI Switzerland

213. SNDVU Seguro

214. Siempre

215. SolidarityNow

216. Solidary Wheels

217. Stap Verder

218. Stem in de Stad

219. Steunpunt Ongedocumenteerden Pauluskerk

220. Stichting Jeannette Noëlhuis

221. Stichting LOS (NL)

222. Stichting ShivA

223. Stichting Vluchteling Kansen

224. Stichting Vluchtelingen in de Knel

225. STIL Utrecht

226. Stowarzyszenie Interwencji Prawnej (Association for Legal Intervention)

227. The Norwegian Centre Against Racism

228. Tierramatria mujeres migrantes y Refugiadas en Andalucía

229. Toevlucht Utrecht

230. Turun Valkonauha ry, Finland

231. URGG

232. Villa Vrede

233. Vluchteling Onder Dak

234. Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland

235. Waterford Integration Services, Ireland

236. Wereldhuis – World House (STEK)

237. Wereldvrouwenhuis Mariam van Nijmegen


Equal Legal Aid
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.