Meeting for their last round of negotiations (‘trilogue’) on the regulation concerning the return of illegally staying migrants, the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament were still continuing their talks as we went to press on Wednesday 20 May. According to our information, disagreement did still remain over the date on which the text would enter into application.
This text, designed to harmonise expulsion procedures within the EU27, is regarded as the “missing piece” needed to complete the Pact on Migration and Asylum, whose entry into force is still set for 12 June.
A stringent technical foundation already stabilised. Last February, interinstitutional discussions had opened on the basis of an approach generally toughened up by the European Parliament, which had rejected the initial report from Malik Azmani (Renew Europe, Dutch) in favour of a counter-report presented by François-Xavier Bellamy (EPP, French) (see EUROPE 13837/1).
The central measures approved so far include the introduction of entry bans of indefinite duration and the tightening of the conditions for administrative detention.
The text thus sets the maximum period of detention for illegally staying migrants at 24 months within the same Member State, thereby doubling the ceiling under the current regime. The new provisions also allow this detention to be extended by six-month periods where a “risk of absconding” exists or where “real prospects of removal” have been identified – notably when the procedures for identification and the issuing of consular laissez-passers by third countries are under way.
Moreover, the draft regulation authorises the detention of families and minors in prison-like facilities with a view to their removal.
Final sticking points. Despite these convergences, several major issues were still preventing the trilogue from being finalised on Wednesday. The implementation timetable and Article 37, authorising technical exchanges between the EU and unrecognised governmental entities to facilitate the readmission of migrants, had as a result been the subject of particular tensions for several days (see EUROPE 13870/5).
At the same time, mandatory mutual recognition of removal decisions had constituted a structural point of division since the start of the negotiations. This provision was pushed strongly by the European Parliament, which had included it in its negotiating mandate, and for months ran up against the EU Council’s refusal: Member States in fact preferred to maintain a purely discretionary approach, based on a statistical assessment of the efficiency of national systems before any automated integration into the Schengen Information System (SIS).
Final tug of war over timetable. In an attempt to break the deadlock on Wednesday, Malik Azmani made a compromise offer to the EU Council, according to our information. The principle was to abandon mandatory mutual recognition and withdraw the controversial amendment to Article 37 – while nevertheless ensuring the strict maintenance of the European Parliament’s position in the wording of certain procedural safeguards – in exchange for the shortest possible application deadline.
But although Parliament’s compromise offering made notable progress possible, negotiations ultimately stalled over this quid pro quo. As we went to press, the Cyprus Presidency was in fact maintaining a strict red line, namely a minimum application period of one year after the official publication of the text, to allow national administrations to adapt their structures. By contrast, Parliament was refusing to go beyond a six-month period, which would require effective application from January 2027. (Original version in French by Justine Manaud)