EU passes new return regulation for rejected asylum seekers

Brussels. The European Union is adopting new migration rules: On Thursday, the Council paved the way for a new return regulation for the deportation of rejected asylum seekers and irregular migrants. It is intended to standardize returns in the EU and allows member states to impose tougher sanctions if people avoid deportation. EU Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner explains what has been wrong so far.

Brunner promises the EU member states “new opportunities and therefore more control” through the new rules. One problem is that people often stay in the EU despite deportation notices: “It is unacceptable that only one in five people who have no right to stay in the EU is actually deported,” Brunner told the Handelsblatt. “The law must apply equally to everyone.”

When the regulation comes into force, the new rules also apply to the deportation of those people whose asylum applications have been rejected in EU member states and whose countries of origin refuse to accept them back. EU states are now allowed to operate deportation centers in safe third countries: Anyone who cannot be deported to their home country should be accommodated in the so-called return hubs.

Not the EU, but the member states themselves can conclude such agreements with third countries. Specifically, Germany, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and Greece are currently negotiating with other countries about being able to set up such centers, such as Rwanda. The Netherlands published a declaration of intent with Rwanda's neighboring state Uganda as early as 2025.

This project is controversial. In order to be able to operate the “Return Hubs” legally, the EU states must take into account the human rights situation in the respective target countries; Homosexuals, among others, are persecuted in Uganda.

What happens when people end up in a “return hub”? The negotiating member states are keeping a low profile: after all, they are in the middle of talks that are sensitive for third countries in terms of domestic policy. The standards in such centers must at least correspond to those in the EU, which could cause discontent among the population, according to people in Brussels familiar with the discussions.

The big questions remain unanswered: Are deportees allowed to work in third countries? Can children attend school? Who secures the centers? The only thing that is certain is that the EU governments are serious. Germany wants to be able to announce an agreement by the end of 2026.

Overall, not many people are likely to end up in the “return hubs”. Experts assume there are a few hundred - partly because the number of asylum cases in the EU has recently fallen sharply. “Asylum numbers are falling dramatically, especially in countries that were the main destinations for illegal migration,” says Brunner.

“In Sweden there is a historic low, in Denmark the lowest value in 40 years, in Austria there are more returns than asylum applications and in Germany the numbers have fallen by 80 percent in the last two years.”

Even though it could ultimately be a comparatively small number of people who end up in the deportation centers, the project has a high domestic political priority in many of the EU member states. For the German MEP Birgit Sippel (SPD), this represents "the low point of the new return regulation": "Comparable models have shown that a lot of tax money is wasted for very little effect. But it is clearly still about deportation symbolism at any price."

The European examples of migration centers in third countries have not yet been successful. Great Britain opened centers in Rwanda in 2022 - costing almost one billion euros. In the end, only four people came there - through voluntary departure - before the British Supreme Court judged the agreement to be illegal in any case.

Italy tried a satellite camp for migrants in Albania: Due to uncertain access to services such as appropriate legal assistance, the project ended up before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), where a ruling is still pending.

“In principle, there is no legal norm that prohibits the transfer of people to countries with which they have no connection whatsoever,” says Stefan Salomon, professor of European law at the University of Amsterdam. “In practice, a lot will depend on the specific legal structure of the agreements with third countries, the human rights situation and the political situation in them.”

The expert points to two problem areas. One concerns fundamental rights: If the centers are designed in such a way that they result in a deprivation of freedom, they would not be compatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Factors such as child welfare, school education and access to social services must also be taken into account.

"If these people are not imprisoned, will they have access to housing and work, to minimum services? Or will they be left to fend for themselves?" asks Salomon. "There is case law from the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights on these issues in the context of the Dublin procedure. I suspect that the standards developed there will also be applicable to the 'return hubs'."

And secondly: the political situation in the respective third countries. “Even if an agreement is concluded with a third country that provides basic guarantees for the rights of people who are brought there, the question still arises as to how reliable such guarantees are,” says the lawyer.

“Why should an authoritarian regime that does not respect its human rights obligations to its own citizens respect obligations to people who are not its citizens?” This requires control mechanisms - and also clear ways to take action against human rights violations. “In other words: the ‘return hubs’ in the return regulation are based on highly uncertain conditions that the regulation itself cannot guarantee.”