On Monday 1 December, Member State experts once again discussed a fourth draft compromise on the regulation on the return of illegal immigrants in the EU, while the Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU will be seeking the support of the permanent representatives for a general approach on 3 December.
While the Presidency has concentrated in recent days on the compulsory mutual recognition of national return decisions, on 28 November it proposed a fourth compromise covering the entire regulation and incorporating the latest thinking on mutual recognition, the future compulsory nature of which it is preparing for.
The Presidency is still proposing that “one year after the entry into application of this Regulation [i.e. three years after its entry into force], the Commission should assess the implementation of mutual recognition”.
On this basis, “the Commission shall submit, as appropriate, legislative proposals [...]with a view to introduce mandatory recognition and enforcement of enforceable return decisions and decisions ordering the removal issued by another Member State”. However, the wording has been made clearer and the text goes into more detail about the elements of this assessment.
In order to prepare the steps towards compulsory mutual recognition, the Commission should, where appropriate, provide support to the Member States, in particular by identifying the mechanisms and adjustments needed to ensure automated processing of the European return order, the text also states.
The compromise also introduces guidelines for refusing to enforce a return decision issued by another Member State.
“The following guiding principles may assist the Member State in identifying in a number of situations, for example when in which mutual recognition should not be applied and in which a national return decision should instead be issued”, as in the cases: - where enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of the enforcing Member State, in particular as regards the return of certain categories of third-country nationals, such as unaccompanied minors and victims of trafficking in human beings, for whom national law provides a higher level of protection; - where a new return decision is issued more quickly; - where the information available in the European return order is incomplete; - the third-country national has lodged an appeal against the return decision with the issuing Member State.
The text also sets out the information arrangements for the return hubs that some Member States may wish to establish, including in the EU’s immediate neighbourhood.
“In order to ensure that the legitimate interests relating to the management of the external borders and internal security of the Member States concerned are adequately protected, where a Member State negotiates an agreement or arrangement for the purposes of this Regulation with a third country neighbouring the Union, the Member States which share a common border with that third country should, in good time – before the agreement or arrangement is concluded – be informed”.
The compromise does not return to the possibility of transferring families with children to hubs in third countries, which the Commission had ruled out. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)