At a meeting of the Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (SCIFA) on Thursday 13 February, experts from the Member States will once again discuss their expectations of the new legislative framework on the ‘return’ of illegal immigrants in the EU, expected by mid-March.
In particular, they will be asked to give their opinion on the possibility of extending detention periods or on the type of agreement that could be reached with third countries so that they agree to host these return centres or ‘hubs’.
In a second debate, they will look at the forthcoming revision of the ‘safe third country’ concept (incorporated into the Asylum Procedures Regulation), following the Commission’s launch of informal consultations with Member States on 27 January. In particular, they will have to indicate whether they think that a future European list of safe third countries would help to make the concept more effective, and whether this revised concept should also go hand in hand with the expected revision of the Return Directive.
Discussions on return ‘hubs’ not yet “conclusive”. With regard to the strategic discussion on returns, the Polish Presidency of the Council of the EU wants to sound out delegations on the most appropriate degree of harmonisation of national systems, as well as on the obligations of persons subject to a return decision and on incentives and sanctions. A third area of discussion concerns the request made in May 2024 by 15 member countries to establish ‘return hubs’ and find ‘innovative solutions’.
In a note dated 7 February, the Presidency indicated that discussions between Member States on this concept, which the Commission could introduce in March in its revised legislation on returns, were still inconclusive. One thing is certain, however: “the concept needs a clear legal basis to be applied”, says the memo.
“Return hubs are one of the policy tools proposed within the basket of new solutions for countering irregular migration developed by a group of like-minded Member States. During the initial discussions some distinct aspects of the concept were elaborated, inter alia, the key preconditions and safeguards, and it was suggested that pilot projects should be developed as soon as possible”.
The delegations “unanimously stressed the need to ensure the respect of fundamental rights in return hubs and the important role of international organisations, notably the UNHCR and lOM, in the hubs. However, the examination of these considerations has not been conclusive”, summarises the Presidency.
“The prevailing position is to have the legal basis framed in a flexible way that would also allow for more ‘tailor-made’ applications, in agreement with the potential host countries of the hubs”.
“Member States generally support the idea that those sent to return centres should include people with a final return decision who do not cooperate in their return procedure and/or whose country of origin does not cooperate”, adds the note.
Using return ‘hubs’ for third-country nationals posing a security threat in the EU was also considered, but “the idea raised concerns over its practical implementation”, the Presidency sums up.
These possible return hubs in third countries also pose a major financial challenge for the Member States. The division of tasks and responsibilities between the member countries and the selected third countries remains one of the most vital issues, says the note.
“Finding third countries willing 10 host such return hubs will surely be a difficult endeavour. Therefore close engagement of the Member States, the Council, the Commission, the EEAS, agencies and other relevant actors in providing appropriate incentives, balancing out costs and benefits as well as envisaging further steps will be essential”, writes the Presidency.
Not near the EU’s borders. However, with regard to the location of these potential ‘hubs’, the Presidency notes that “there seems to be an agreement that return hubs should not be located in the proximity of the EU’s external borders, to avoid causing secondary irregular migration back to the EU”.
On the need to define the obligations of persons subject to a return decision, the Presidency noted unanimous support for the imposition of sanctions against such persons who fail to fulfil these obligations.
This could mean the addition of a compulsory and clearly identified place of residence for the duration of the return procedure or the obligation to cooperate during medical examinations. Extending the ban on entering the country or withdrawing social benefits are other possible sanctions, and some delegations have also suggested criminal sanctions. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)