The Council of the European Union adopted the bloc’s new Return Regulation on October 1, 2026, after lawmakers approved the measure in June. The rules expand the grounds and potential duration of immigration detention, prompting rights concerns over the safeguards governing custody and removal.
The measure replaces the 2008 Return Directive. The European Commission proposed it on March 11, 2025, as part of the EU’s migration and asylum reforms.
The European Parliament approved the law on 17 June 2026, with 418 votes in favour, 218 against and 30 abstentions. The Council gave final approval at a meeting of home affairs ministers in Luxembourg.
The measure is also known as the “Deportation Regulation,” a label used by the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants because of what it calls the legislation’s punitive and coercive character. Most rules will apply one year after publication in the Official Journal of the EU, while some provisions related to return hubs apply immediately.
The new rules widen detention grounds and can extend custody to 30 months
Article 29 adds detention grounds beyond the 2008 directive’s focus on absconding risks and obstruction of return procedures. Authorities may detain people considered security risks, to establish identity or nationality, or for failing to cooperate under Article 18. National law may also supply “other relevant grounds related to return.”
The regulation does not spell out how officials should assess several of those risks, including whether a person may abscond or hamper removal. Legal scholars Galatea Scotti and Chiara Catelli warn that the open-ended national-law provision could invite broad interpretations and uneven enforcement.
Article 32(3) sets a standard maximum of 12 months. Authorities may extend detention to 24 months when removal takes longer because of a person’s lack of cooperation, delays in obtaining documents from third countries, or other exceptional circumstances provided for by national law. A further extension of up to six months is possible if there is a risk of absconding or changed circumstances create a reasonable prospect of removal. That can bring custody to 30 months.
A transfer between EU countries could start a fresh detention period if the person’s conduct meets the grounds for detention in the receiving state. Past custody would not count toward the new period. After the stated maximum expires, authorities can still impose measures such as residence restrictions, reporting requirements, financial guarantees or electronic monitoring.
Article 30(1) lists circumstances in which a risk of absconding is presumed unless a person proves otherwise. They include entering or moving within another member state without authorisation, failing to cooperate, breaching an entry ban, or opposing removal physically, violently or verbally. An analysis of the agreed text argues that the broad criteria could make detention routine despite the requirement for an individualised, proportionate assessment.
Governments cite low return rates as five countries explore offshore hubs
Ireland’s Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, Jim O’Callaghan, defended the measure after the Council vote. “Around two in three people ordered to leave the EU do not actually leave. The revised return rules adopted today will help member states implement swift returns effectively.”
The figures cited in the debate use different measures. European Commission data put returns to countries of origin at about 28% of people ordered to leave. Eurostat counted 108,475 third-country nationals ordered to leave an EU country in the first quarter of 2026, and 34,550 people with return orders returned to a non-EU country. Those two sets do not track the same people, so they do not establish a directly comparable return rate.
The regulation also provides a framework for transferring people to “return hubs” in non-EU countries, alongside return to a country of origin or transit. Such centres require an agreement with a non-EU country that respects human rights and non-refoulement protections. Unaccompanied minors are excluded.
Denmark, Austria, Greece, Germany and the Netherlands have explored possible locations, with Rwanda identified as a potential host. Danish Minister for Immigration and Integration Morten Bodskov said discussions were progressing. German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt called talks preliminary and said any agreement would need to withstand possible lawsuits; he hoped for a first deal by the end of the year.
Greek Minister for Migration and Asylum Thanos Plevris said Greece aimed to open a centre in an African country in 2027, but did not name the country. Rwandan officials told visiting Green lawmakers negotiations were ongoing. Dutch parliamentarians Anna Strolenberg and Tineke Strik said their exploratory visit to Rwanda and neighbouring Uganda suggested both countries were open to such arrangements. The United Kingdom abandoned its Rwanda deportation scheme, while Italian-run facilities in Albania have faced legal challenges and slow uptake.
Rights groups warn that detention and return hubs lack clear safeguards
PICUM’s Chiara Catelli said the regulation does not set out conditions or time limits for detention in return hubs, or identify who would monitor safeguards. Marta Welander, the International Rescue Committee’s EU Advocacy Director, said transferred people’s protection would depend on a state outside the EU’s legal reach, making oversight, appeals and protection from refoulement difficult to guarantee.
In July, Council of Europe human rights commissioner Michael O’Flaherty called on the five countries pursuing the initiative to conduct risk assessments before opening hubs, establish independent and continuous monitoring with power to suspend cooperation, adopt binding agreements with enforceable rights clauses, and publish the agreements and monitoring findings. These were recommendations, not provisions in the regulation.
Separate concerns relate to detention under Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which corresponds to Article 6 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In Saadi v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights said detention can be lawful yet arbitrary if it lacks a sufficient connection to its purpose, occurs in inappropriate conditions, or lasts longer than reasonably required.
The text also permits investigative steps under Article 23a, including searches of homes and other relevant premises, forced biometric collection, and the seizure of electronic devices and personal belongings. More than 200 organisations petitioned against the proposal. The European Digital Rights network warned that coercive biometric collection, even when described as a last resort, could encourage violence or punishment.
A separate EU court proceeding concerns the outgoing directive. On 4 June 2026, Advocate General Jean Richard de la Tour issued an opinion in Case C-182/26 PPU, Hardeker. He said a return decision could name more than one destination if each choice had individual justification and judicial review, and that detention is barred only when removal to every listed country would expose the person to a real risk of prohibited treatment.
The regulation’s general application is scheduled for one year after its publication. Mutual recognition of member states’ return decisions is initially voluntary; the Commission has planned an implementing decision for 1 July 2027, after checking the effectiveness of the technical systems.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
