With three days to go before the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE) votes on the recast of the Returns Regulation, tensions between rapporteurs are at their highest.
Hesitant negotiations and the late communication of compromise amendments undermined the alliance initially favoured by the lead rapporteur, Malik Azmani (Renew Europe, Dutch), with the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) and the European People’s Party (EPP). The presentation of an alternative report by the EPP on Thursday 5 March leaves it unclear which majority will pass the text - if any.
Disorganised procedure and opaque negotiations. The Regulation on the return of irregular migrants, presented in May 2025, is considered to be the ‘missing piece’ of the ‘Pact on Migration and Asylum’, adopted during the previous legislature and due to enter into force on 12 June. The stated aim is to replace a 2008 directive, deemed obsolete, with a harmonised regulation for all 27 Member States. The stakes are high: speeding up deportation procedures, creating ‘return centres’ outside the EU and tightening detention conditions.
However, the text has been in the hands of the European Parliament for several months, held up by Malik Azmani’s trials and errors to establish a solid majority. Although the rapporteur initially envisaged a vote by the LIBE Committee at the end of 2025, this was set for 24 February before being postponed at the last minute to 9 March, due to a lack of agreement with the shadow rapporteurs (see EUROPE 13807/4). At this stage, the full list of compromise amendments had still not been sent to all parties.
It was only adopted on 4 March, less than a week before the vote and amid widespread discontent (see EUROPE 13821/7). In a statement issued the following day, Malik Azmani strongly defended his report, which he described as a “balanced outcome” after examining 2,409 amendments. “My aim was always clear from the start: to have no political symbols but to deliver an effective and efficient return policy that is legally sound”, he said.
Counter-attack from the right. This lack of “political symbols” is perhaps what has ended up overturning the alliances seen up to that point. Whether out of disagreement on the substance or impatience with this hasty communication, the EPP, represented by the shadow rapporteur, François-Xavier Bellamy (French), swept aside the ‘Azmani report’ the very next day with an alternative report considerably tightening up the initial measures. Whereas Mr Azmani is trying to maintain certain legal guarantees and prioritise voluntary departures, the ‘Bellamy report’ introduces the possibility of imposing an immediate obligation to leave the country. It also provides for indefinite entry bans and the extension of administrative detention, including for minors, in return centres at borders or abroad.
This new proposal quickly received the support of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), Patriots for Europe (PfE) and Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN). This ‘alliance of circumstance’ further isolates the left-wing groups and places Mr Azmani in the uncomfortable position of referee, risking validation of a text that is much more radical than expected and at odds with the values advocated by the S&D and the Greens/EFA.
Strong criticism from the left and civil society. Faced with these developments, the reaction from the left was swift. Mélissa Camara, French shadow rapporteur for the Greens/EFA, criticised the way the discussions were conducted, which she said “excluded certain political groups”. She also deplores the fact that Mr Bellamy’s text is inspired by “deeply racist and populist ideologies, which will put lives at risk”.
This indignation was shared by four NGOs, including the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) and Amnesty International, at a press briefing on Friday 6 March. Olivia Sundberg Diez, advocacy officer at Amnesty International, deplored the potential consequences of the proposed measures, such as the weakening of judicial review and the risk of widespread arbitrary detention. She was particularly concerned about the disappearance of the best interests of the child in the ‘Bellamy report’, which states that “the detention of minors and families, even as a last resort, can now be carried out in prison-like structures”. (Original version in French by Justine Manaud)