On Friday 7 November, the Danish Presidency of the Council of the European Union proposed, in a new compromise on the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the European Union, to maintain the date by which Member States will be obliged to mutually recognise decisions taken by the national authorities of the EU27 “three years after” the entry into force of the Pact on Migration and Asylum (planned for mid-2026).
This new compromise, accompanied by another compromise on other elements of the regulation due to be discussed in the working group on Monday 10 November, also provides for additional exemptions for member countries.
With opinions remaining very divided on the subject of compulsory mutual recognition, which affects their sovereignty as much as fears of new administrative burdens, Member States will therefore be able under the compromise to not apply compulsory recognition: if “enforcement is contrary to national policy considerations in the enforcing Member State in relation to returns to certain third countries” or if “the enforcement is contrary to national policy considerations in the enforcing Member State in relation to the return of certain categories of third-country nationals, such as unaccompanied minors and victims of human trafficking”.
It will still be possible to opt out of compulsory recognition if the European Return Order or the information available in the Schengen Information System is deemed insufficient, or if “the third-country national has lodged an appeal against the return decision in the issuing Member State”.
There are now nine possible derogations for Member States. The Presidency has also amended the provisions on Frontex and the financial compensation arrangements in the event that a Member State does not wish to recognise and enforce a return decision ordered in another Member State.
In another compromise, also dated 7 November, the Presidency specifies that a third-country national who has been issued an entry ban of more than ten years may, ten years after leaving the Member States, request the issuing Member State to review whether the entry ban is to be withdrawn, suspended or shortened, as opposed to five years previously.
On the subject of return hubs, the Danish Presidency also indicated that it needed more time to clarify the fact that not only unaccompanied minors could be transferred to such centres. The European Commission and the European Parliament have also excluded families with minors. The latest Danish text is not ready on this specific aspect and might therefore evolve. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)