The Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament are preparing to seal a provisional agreement on the recast of the Return Regulation in an electric atmosphere on Wednesday 20 May, during the fourth and final interinstitutional negotiations (‘trilogues’).
Initially presented by the European Commission in March 2025, the text aims to harmonise and speed up expulsion procedures within the EU by repealing the 2008 directive. The draft regulation entered its trilogue phase in February, after a number of twists and turns which finally led, in the European Parliament, to the adoption of the alternative report by François-Xavier Bellamy (EPP, French) in the parliamentary committee (see EUROPE 13824/10) and then in the plenary session, supported by a controversial alliance between the right-wing parties (see EUROPE 13837/1).
Return hubs. According to the latest document summarising the discussions (‘4 columns’), the negotiators managed to reach agreement on almost all the technical provisions at the heart of the regulation: speeding up expulsion procedures, tightening up the conditions and duration of detention (24 months, extendable by 6 months, compared with 12 + 12 months previously) and creating ‘return hubs’ in third countries.
However, this last measure – undoubtedly the most criticised in the text – is still met with a certain amount of scepticism. Behind the scenes, some Member States are already questioning the operational viability of these structures, anticipating a formal challenge before the Court of Justice of the EU. This view was shared on Tuesday by Mélissa Camara (Greens/EFA, French), who argues that respect for fundamental rights is simply “not possible” in such hubs or centres.
Above all, despite the fluidity of the trilogues held so far, two points of division remain to be resolved at this final interinstitutional meeting.
Deadlock no. 1: the application deadline. Article 52, on the implementation of the regulation, is still on the negotiating table. In their ‘general approach’ – adopted under the Danish Presidency last December – the Member States called for a two-year deadline, given the complexity of incorporating such binding mechanisms into their national legislation (see EUROPE 13768/1).
On the other hand, and in line with the logic of the majority behind it, the European Parliament’s mandate requires immediate application, i.e. a minimum of 21 days after the entry into force of the regulation, to be consistent with the roll-out of the ‘Pact on Migration and Asylum’, scheduled for 12 June.
To break the deadlock, negotiators are said to be looking at the possibility of a fragmented timetable: the immediate application of certain key measures deemed to be priorities by MEPs, combined with a gradual transition for the most burdensome administrative aspects.
Deadlock no. 2: negotiations with Afghanistan. The second stumbling block – and the most politically explosive – concerns the external dimension of returns (Article 37), in the light of the channels of discussion already opened with the Taliban regime.
According to an EU Council preparatory note dated 14 May, which Agence Europe was able to consult, the Member States are pushing for “administrative cooperation” to facilitate the identification and readmission of illegal Afghan migrants.
The idea had been envisaged for a long time, even before the start of negotiations on the Return Regulation: in October, twenty countries sent a joint letter to the European Commission calling for the opening of discussions with Kabul (see EUROPE 13734/17), and technical exchanges were launched in early 2025. In addition, bilateral talks have been conducted by Belgium and Germany for several months.
However, last week’s confirmation by the Commission that a Taliban delegation was expected in Brussels to continue these negotiations (see EUROPE 13867/24) has inflamed criticism. Not least because this visit raises the crucial issue of granting Schengen visas to representatives of a non-recognised regime. On this subject, the Greens/EFA obtained a hearing of Magnus Brunner, Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs, in the Civil Liberties Committee – although the EPP demanded that it be held in camera.
Ultimately, the success of the final negotiating session will depend on two variables: on the one hand, the ability of the Cyprus Presidency to maintain the EU Council’s red lines; on the other, the flexibility of the various parliamentary groups, which are still deeply divided over the Afghan question.
To see the '4 columns' document: https://aeur.eu/f/lz0 (Original version in French by Justine Manaud)