11 December 2025 – As researchers in the EU-funded FAiR project, we have reviewed the Council’s position on the Return Regulation. Several of the proposed measures would have serious effects on fundamental rights, yet we do not see clear evidence that they would improve return outcomes.
A turn toward restrictive measures without firm evidence
The Council text further expands some of the enforcement-driven elements present in the Commission proposal. The text introduces provisions that allow authorities to enter private homes to enforce removals, extend the duration of detention up to 30 months including for children, widen the grounds for detention, and broaden entry bans, even to an unlimited duration in some cases. Criminal sanctions for people not cooperating with return are another point of concern. The text also maintains the concept of ‘return hubs’ outside the EU with a large margin of flexibility for member states and weak monitoring obligations. These steps raise real questions about oversight and accountability.
The evidence is clear
Among other aspects, FAiR’s publicly available findings show that policymakers should recognise non-return as a structural feature of migration governance, not merely a policy failure, reinforce independent human rights monitoring across all return procedures, and redefine what “effectiveness” means in return away from numbers of enforced return orders only.
Across our interviews, policy reviews and cross-country comparisons, a consistent picture emerges. Return systems work best when people see them as fair, transparent and predictable. When procedures feel legitimate, cooperation increases.
Measures based mainly on pressure, prolonged detention or severe sanctions do not raise return rates. They can even reduce trust and make cooperation harder.
Our main conclusion is simple. Return policies need to be fair and humane if they are to be credible and effective. We recommend:
- Not using return numbers as the only indicator of policy success.
- Strengthening independent monitoring of returns to increase legitimacy and human rights compliance.
- Considering non-return options such as regularisation, labour pathways or humanitarian options as concrete policy alternatives.
A call to the European Parliament
“It is important that legislators understand what the research actually shows,” said Professor Arjen Leerkes, Erasmus University Rotterdam and lead on the FAiR project. “Systems built on prolonged detention, intrusive home searches and indefinite bans tend to erode trust and reduce cooperation. Our evidence shows that such measures are unlikely to deliver considerably higher return rates. There is also a real risk of political backfire: if governments create unrealistic expectations about return, public confidence will suffer when these promises cannot be met.”
As Parliament negotiates its position, we urge MEPs to examine whether the Council’s approach is compatible with evidence, EU values and long-term public trust.
We remain ready to support policymakers seeking approaches to return that are research-based, humane and sustainable in the long term.