The end of deportation tourism? European Parliament backs tougher migration policy

1

The European Parliament has adopted a draft regulation marking the most far-reaching change to EU migration policy in decades, aimed at speeding up returns of third-country nationals staying illegally in the EU.

2

The regulation introduces an optional mechanism for mutual recognition of return decisions between Member States via the European Return Order, meant to curb so-called deportation tourism.

3

The new rules allow return hubs outside EU territory and extend the basic detention period for migrants awaiting removal from 6 to 12 months, extendable to 24 months total.

4

Entry bans now acquire pan-European scope and may run up to 10 years, up to 20 in duly substantiated cases, and indefinitely for those posing a security risk.

5

The regulation imposes an extensive set of cooperation obligations on migrants, with sanctions for non-compliance including financial penalties and withdrawal of social benefits.

On Wednesday, June 17, the European Parliament, voting in plenary session, backed the draft of a new regulation intended to govern the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the territory of the European Union. This is the most far-reaching change to EU migration policy in recent decades.

Ineffectiveness of the return system as an impetus for reform

The new rules, intended to supplement the provisions of the EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum, were designed to streamline and speed up the procedures for returning immigrants staying in the European Union without the right of residence. The regulation responds to numerous problems associated with the removal of illegal immigrants — for example, in a March 2025 communication, the European Commission noted that only around 20% of orders to leave the territory issued to third-country nationals by Member States are actually enforced, meaning that the vast majority of persons subject to such an order remain in the Union’s territory unlawfully.

Mutual recognition and enforcement of removal decisions across all EU Member States

Under the new rules, a return decision (an administrative act or a judicial ruling) issued against a third-country national staying illegally in the territory of an EU Member State obliges that person to leave the territory of the European Union immediately or within a specified period. Under the new regulation, such a decision, issued by one Member State, may be recognized and enforced by another Member State (Article 9).

This solution is a response to the problem of so-called deportation tourism — the phenomenon whereby a third-country national obliged to leave the territory of one EU Member State would move to another EU country (often even several countries), hoping to drag out proceedings and avoid removal.

Return hubs and new rules on migrant detention

One of the most important changes introduced by the new regulation is that it allows for the creation of so-called return hubs — facilities located outside the territory of the European Union, established on the basis of agreements concluded with third countries, where persons subject to a return decision await its enforcement.

A condition for concluding an agreement with a third country on the establishment of a return hub is that country’s respect for human rights, international law, and the principle of non-refoulement (with unaccompanied minors excluded from this system), which prohibits the removal of foreign nationals to countries where they would face persecution. Before such agreements enter into force, the competent national authorities are required to inform the European Commission and the other Member States. The new regulation introduces an explicit exclusion for unaccompanied minors — they may not be transferred to return hubs located outside the territory of the European Union, regardless of the legal basis of their stay and any return decisions issued against them (Article 17).

The provisions on return hubs respond to the years-long difficulties Member States have faced in implementing such solutions in practice — previous attempts to establish hubs outside EU territory, undertaken among others by Italy in agreement with Albania, were frequently blocked by national courts and the European Court of Human Rights, which cited the risk of violating human rights and the principle of non-refoulement.

As stated in recital 23 of the regulation, allowing such facilities to operate is intended to expand Member States’ options for ensuring returns to third countries through additional tools.

The regulation also introduces new investigative powers for the competent authorities of the Member States, set out in Article 23a. Under this provision, authorities may — for the purpose of preparing or ensuring an effective return — search the person subject to the return procedure and, after obtaining an appropriate order, their place of residence or other relevant premises, as well as seize personal belongings, electronic devices, and other items of relevance. The provision further grants authorities the power to collect biometric data, including fingerprints, with the possibility of using coercive measures as a last resort. Importantly, all of these actions may be carried out without the consent of the third-country national concerned, while respecting the fundamental rights and safeguards provided for under Union and national law. Directive 2008/115/EC contained no provisions on investigative measures in the context of the return procedure.

The regulation changes the rules on the detention of migrants awaiting removal. Under Directive 2008/115/EC of December 16, 2008, on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, a third-country national subject to the return procedure could, as a rule, be placed in detention for a period not exceeding 6 months (Article 15(5)), with the possibility of extension in exceptional cases by a further 12 months. The new rules, by contrast, extend the basic detention period to 12 months, with the possibility of extension in exceptional cases to a total of 24 months (Article 32(3)).

The text of the regulation (Article 32(3)) indicates that this change results from problems with the timely enforcement of removal decisions, arising in particular from a lack of cooperation on the part of the migrants themselves and from delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries, which in practice made it impossible to carry out removal before the expiry of the previous maximum detention period.

New rules on entry bans into the territory of the European Union

Significant changes were also introduced to the provisions on entry bans for third-country nationals into the European Union, both in temporal and territorial terms. Under Directive 2008/115/EC, such a ban applied, as a rule, only to a single Member State, although recital 14 of that directive called for entry bans to acquire a pan-European dimension. In addition, the directive provided that a ban would, as a rule, not exceed five years, with extension possible only in respect of persons posing a serious threat to public policy or national security (Article 11(2)).

The new rules change these principles, extending the maximum length of an entry ban, with due regard to all circumstances relevant to the individual case, to up to ten years. Furthermore, this maximum period may be extended to 20 years in duly substantiated cases, and, with respect to persons posing a security risk, even for an indefinite period (Article 10(6) in conjunction with Article 16(3)(a)).

The European legislature has thus created a three-tier structure based on the principle of an exception to an exception: the rule is an entry ban not exceeding 10 years, to which an exception applies in the form of a ban of up to 20 years, and to that exception, in turn, a further exception applies — the possibility of imposing a ban of indefinite duration on persons posing a security risk.

A significant new feature compared with the 2008 directive is the pan-European character of the entry ban — a ban issued by one Member State covers the territory of the entire European Union and is enforceable in all Member States through the European Return Order entered into the Schengen Information System (Article 10(1)).

Migrants’ obligation to cooperate

A new feature is also the extensive provisions on the obligations imposed on third-country nationals to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedure. Under the regulation, migrants are obliged, among other things, to remain available to the authorities, provide identity and travel documents, supply contact details, disclose the travel route to Europe, appear when summoned by national authorities and third-country authorities, provide biometric data, and not obstruct the return either physically or verbally (Article 21).

In addition, Article 23b of the regulation provides for a range of sanctions for failure to comply with the obligations set out in Article 21 of the same act. In such cases, Member States may impose on the third-country national one of the measures listed in that provision, including, among others, the refusal of benefits, the refusal of a work permit, the extension of the entry ban, financial penalties, and even criminal sanctions, where provided for by national law.

These solutions respond to numerous problems caused by migrants who, until now, have frequently obstructed migration procedures by destroying their identity documents, giving false identities, or refusing to appear before the authorities of Member States. In this context, it is significant that Directive 2008/115/EC did not contain a separate, detailed provision governing the migrant’s obligation to cooperate with national authorities — this matter was regulated only indirectly, through the possibility of imposing on the migrant obligations aimed at preventing the risk of absconding, such as regularly reporting to the competent authority, depositing a financial guarantee, or an obligation to reside at a specific place (Article 7(3)), without any mechanism of sanctions for a lack of cooperation in the broader sense.

European Parliament backs tougher migration policy

The day before the plenary vote, on Tuesday, June 16, the draft regulation won the backing of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) — by 44 votes to 29. Among the Polish members of that committee, the motion enjoyed broad cross-party support: it was backed both by representatives of the ECR — Maciej Wąsik and Jadwiga Wiśniewska (Law and Justice, PiS) — and by MEPs from the EPP group — Magdalena Adamowicz, Krzysztof Brejza, and Michał Wawrykiewicz (Civic Coalition, KO). The only Polish member of the LIBE Committee to vote against was Krzysztof Śmiszek of the New Left (Nowa Lewica), who sits in the S&D group.

On Wednesday, June 17, the European Parliament backed the draft of the new regulation by a clear majority — 418 MEPs voted in favor, with 218 against and 30 abstentions. The regulation also enjoyed broad support from the Polish delegation to the European Parliament — the overwhelming majority of the 51 Polish MEPs present in the chamber, representing right-wing, center-right, and liberal groupings alike, voted in favor of its adoption. The only Polish MEPs who voted against were representatives of the New Left (Nowa Lewica) — Krzysztof Śmiszek, Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus, and Robert Biedroń.

What comes next?

The draft regulation adopted by the European Parliament is not yet binding law — before it can enter into force, it must be formally adopted by the Council of the European Union and published in the EU’s Official Journal. However, given that on June 1, 2026, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament reached an agreement on the content of the regulation, its formal adoption by the Council is highly likely.

“The vote on June 17 marks a clear turning point in the European Union’s approach to illegal migration. After years of effective helplessness in the face of the growing scale of illegal stay on EU territory, the EU institutions have decided to give Member States real tools for enforcing the law. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Polish MEPs, representing groupings of very different ideological profiles, from the right to left-wing liberals, voted in favor of adopting the regulation shows that even circles previously skeptical of tightening migration policy have recognized the need for systemic change,” notes Patryk Ignaszczak, an analyst at the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.

Translated using Claude.ai