In a final twist, the reform of the regulation on the return of irregular migrants has finally left the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties: in the vote held on Monday 9 March, the ‘counter-report’ by shadow rapporteur François-Xavier Bellamy (European People’s Party, French) won by a wide margin over that of the main rapporteur, Malik Azmani (Renew Europe, Dutch).
The text was adopted with 41 votes in favour, 32 against and one abstention, despite an attempt by the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) to postpone the vote on the grounds that the deadline imposed “does not correspond to any real urgency and is purely a political decision”, according to French MEP Murielle Laurent.
The alternative list of compromise amendments, submitted by Mr Bellamy the day after Mr Azmani’s, received, as expected, the support of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), the Patriots for Europe (PfE) and the Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN), taking the wind out of Mr Azmani’s sails, whose report was rejected in its entirety. “My aim was to arrive at a balanced text without losing sight of respect for fundamental rights”, however, defended the Renew Europe MEP just before the vote, expressing his conviction that his text “reflected this balance”.
This outcome marks a bitter failure for the rapporteur, at the end of negotiations that not only dragged on for several months, but which, to cap it all, failed to build the ‘centrist’ compromise (S&D, Renew Europe and EPP) that he had planned. A prospect that François-Xavier Bellamy himself hinted at a few weeks before the vote, when he said he would not rule out the possibility of giving priority to voluntary returns over expulsions (see EUROPE 13807/4).
The memory seems distant when one looks at the details of the ‘Bellamy’ report which, in the face of Renew Europe’s timid guarantees on voluntary departures, proposes a much more coercive regime, with potentially permanent territorial bans, immediate obligations to leave the country, an extension of administrative detention or even the possibility of detaining minors and families in prison-like structures (see EUROPE 13823/4).
“It became increasingly clear over the last few weeks that it would be difficult to form a majority with the S&D”, Mr Bellamy explained to a group of journalists after the vote, pointing out that the group had expressed its opposition to the “fundamental” elements of the text, such as return centres. “But we couldn’t envisage abandoning these elements”, he added.
Charlie Weimers MEP (ECR, Swedish) welcomed the adoption of the report in a press release, interpreting the result as a “clear signal” that “the European Parliament wants rules that actually work”. “Migration policy cannot be effective if return decisions exist only on paper”, he stressed.
The S&D, Greens/EFA and The Left groups all deplored the fact that the text runs counter to “fundamental rights” and “European values”, and are already planning to challenge the negotiating mandate as soon as the plenary vote is formally announced, according to our information.
“By outsourcing our return and asylum policy to third countries in this way, we are entering a new era of ‘human trade’, where migrants are expelled against their will in exchange for money”, criticised Murielle Laurent (S&D, French), denouncing “a geopolitical error”. Tineke Strik (Greens/EFA, Dutch) described the text as “counter-productive, inefficient and expensive to implement”, despite the fact that the European Commission had not presented any “impact assessment” legitimising the proposed measures.
Mr Bellamy was optimistic about the progress of potential negotiations with the Council of the EU and the Commission, which share similar positions. He expressed the hope that this proposal would be adopted “before the start of the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum”, currently set for 12 June 2026. (Original version in French by Justine Manaud with Lionel Changeur)