Dies ist eine HTML Version eines Anhanges der Informationsfreiheitsanfrage 'report on provisions on detention (Article 19 of Directive 2008/115/EC of 16th December 2008'.



















 
Ref. Ares(2018)1078725 - 26/02/2018
 
EUROPEAN 
  COMMISSION 
Brussels, 28.3.2014  
COM(2014) 199 final 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
on EU Return Policy 
 
EN    EN 

 
COMMUNICATION ON EU RETURN POLICY 
 
Part I - Introduction 
 
The EU has been working since 1999 on developing a comprehensive approach on migration, 
which covers the harmonisation of admission conditions, the rights of legally staying third-
country nationals1 and the development of legal measures and practical cooperation to prevent 
irregular migration flows. 
This Communication focuses on EU policy on the return of irregular migrants, which — 
together with efficient border management, effective sanctions against employers of 
irregularly staying third-country nationals, and the fight against smuggling and trafficking of 
human beings — is an important tool for facing the challenge of irregular migration, while 
fully ensuring respect for the fundamental rights and dignity of the individuals concerned, in 
line with the  EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights 
and all other relevant international human rights conventions. The return of third-country 
nationals without legal grounds to stay in the EU or a need to be granted protection is 
essential to the credibility of EU legal migration and asylum policy. 
This Communication reports on the changes to EU return policy over recent years, analyses 
its impact, and presents some ideas for future developments. It responds to the Commission’s 
obligation to submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the 
implementation of the Return Directive, the main piece of EU acquis  on return2 (see the 
detailed part  IV of this Communication), as well as to the political commitment made by the 
Commission when the amended FRONTEX Regulation was adopted in 2011 to report on the 
monitoring of return operations coordinated by FRONTEX (see section II.4.2).   
 
Return policy is closely interlinked with readmission and reintegration policy, and both are an 
integral part of the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility  (GAMM),3  which is the 
overarching framework for external asylum and migration policy. Through the GAMM, the 
EU is working to strengthen its political dialogue and operational cooperation with non-EU 
countries on migration issues, including return and readmission, in a spirit of partnership and 
based on shared interests. While EU readmission policy is not addressed in detail here,4 the 
external dimension of return policy is a key aspect in ensuring its effectiveness and in 
addressing issues such as voluntary departure and reintegration of returnees in countries of 
origin, as well as identification and documentation of returnees.  
                                                 
1 "Third-country national" means any person who is not an EU citizen and who is not a person enjoying the right 
of free movement under Union law. 
2 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common 
standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, OJ L 348/98 
of 24.12.2008. 
3 Communication on the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility — COM(2011) 743. 
4 For more detail on this aspect, see the Communication on the Evaluation of EU Readmission Agreements 
(EURAs), COM(2011) 76 of 23.2.2011. 
 
2

 
Part II - EU return policy to date 
 
1. Facts and figures 
 
 
The number of apprehensions of irregular migrants in the EU has fallen every year since 
2008, with a cumulative decline between 2008 and 2012 of almost 30 %. The figure has now 
gone down from about 610 000 apprehensions in 2008 to around 440 000. The precise reason 
for this decrease is difficult to gauge, but a number of factors such as improved controls at the 
external borders, the economic crisis in Europe and an improved economic situation in some 
significant source countries have contributed to this change. In spite of this decline, irregular 
migration will undoubtedly continue to present challenges to the EU, given the complexity 
and multi-faceted nature of this issue. Irregular migration is, by definition, likely to be subject 
to unpredictable quantitative (numbers of migrants), geographic (non-EU countries concerned 
and Member States affected) and qualitative (motivation for migration) fluctuations. With 
regard to the return of those without the right to stay in the EU, statistics demonstrate that 
there is a considerable gap between the persons issued with a return decision (approximately 
484 000 persons in 2012, 491 000 in 2011 and 540 000 in 2010) and those who, as a 
consequence, have left the EU (approximately 178 000 in 2012, 167 000 in 2011 and 199 000 
in 2010).5 Provisional 2013 data confirms this trend, with a slight downward trend in 
apprehensions as compared to 2012 as well as a continued existence of a large gap between 
return decisions issued and effected returns.  
 
There are multiple reasons for this gap, including in particular lack of cooperation from the  
non-EU country of origin or transit (e.g. problems in obtaining the necessary documentation 
from non-EU consular authorities) and lack of cooperation from the individual concerned (i.e. 
he/she conceals his/her identity or absconds). 
 
2. The EU legal framework on return 
 
In recent years, considerable progress has been made towards putting in place a consistent 
legal framework for return measures in Member States across the Union, notably with the 
adoption of the Return Directive. The Directive’s aim is to ensure that the return of third-
country nationals without legal grounds to stay in the EU is carried out effectively, through 
fair and transparent procedures that fully respect the fundamental rights and dignity of the 
people concerned. A series of ECJ rulings have clarified a number of key aspects of the 
Directive (e.g. detention), with a significant impact on Member States’ implementation of the 
Directive itself. A detailed assessment of the impact of the Return Directive on Member 
States’6 return policies and practices and an overview of the ECJ jurisprudence is given in part 
IV of this Communication.  
 
                                                 
5 Eurostat data: Statistics may however give a distorted picture as there is currently no obligation for MS to 
collect data on voluntary returns and these are also not properly recorded on a voluntary basis. This statistical 
gap can only be closed once a systematic recording of voluntary departures will be in place. The EU Entry-Exit 
system currently under negotiation has the potential of significantly facilitating such data collection. 
6 The term "Member States" used in the Return Directive context refers to 30 States: the 28 EU Member States 
minus UK and Ireland, plus CH, NO, Icl and Lie. Explanation: The Return Directive is a hybrid instrument and 
on the one hand is part of the Schengen acquis. It applies thus to Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and 
Liechtenstein.  The UK and Ireland are not bound by that part of the Schengen acquis in accordance with 
Protocol 19. On the other hand, the Return Directive is a development of the acquis covered by Title V of Part 
Three of the Treaty, into which UK and Ireland could opt into in accordance with Protocol 21. However, these 
MS have not exercised such an opt-in.   
 
3

 
Other  ‘flanking’ legal instruments adopted at EU level also play an important role in the 
area of return.  The Visa Information System (VIS) Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 is expected 
to become a significant tool for identification and documentation of returnees. One of its 
objectives, according to Article 2(e), is ‘to assist in the identification of any person who may 
not, or may no longer, fulfil the conditions for entry to, stay or residence on the territory of 
the Member States
.’ Articles 19(1) and 20(1) allow access by migration authorities to certain 
VIS data for verification and identification purposes. Article 31(2)7 allows this data to be 
transferred to or shared with a non-EU country to prove the identity of third-country nationals 
for the purpose of return. According to a recent European Migration Network (EMN) ad-hoc 
enquiry,8 some Member States have already started to use VIS data for return and readmission 
purposes and this seemed to have a positive impact both in terms of length of return 
procedures and rates of return. VIS is also explicitly mentioned as one of the possible means 
of evidence of nationality under some of the most recent EU Readmission Agreements 
(EURAs).  
 
The Schengen Information System (SIS) has proved to be a helpful tool for giving full effect 
to the European aspect of entry bans issued under the Return Directive. These Schengen-wide 
entry bans are primarily preventive. During the period 2008-2013 an average of 
approximately 700 000 Schengen-wide entry bans were stored in the system. However, even 
using these tools more efficiently will not solve all the issues around identification and re-
documentation for irregular migrants who have come into the European Union without a visa, 
or who have simply entered without documents and claim a false or real identity that cannot 
be verified. For those cases — which take up significant migration authority time and are a 
major challenge to return management — new, innovative solutions must be found, based on 
increased cooperation with non-EU countries and in full respect of fundamental rights.     
 
3. Financial support at EU level 
 
The Return Fund (2008-2013) provided for a financial support mechanism, which allowed 
considerable EU funds to be channelled to Member States to help address their challenges in 
the area of return management. The total allocation for all Member States in the period 2008-
2013 amounted to € 674 million. Since the start of the programming period in 2008, annual 
programmes in the Member States have developed significantly. They include a wider range 
of measures which put increasing emphasis on voluntary return programmes and compliance 
with common standards of the Return Directive, including humane and dignified detention 
conditions and promotion of sustainable return and reintegration.9  NGOs played an 
important role
 in carrying out actions and projects to assist returnees. NGOs enjoy access to 
migrant diaspora community, have experience in working with irregular migrants and are 
perceived as moderators not representing the State. They were frequently able to de-escalate, 
to establish trust and better cooperation between authorities and returnees and to improve the 
situation of irregular migrants in general. The upcoming Asylum,  Migration and Integration 
                                                 
7 Article 31(2) of the VIS Regulation provides a derogation from the general principle that data processed in the 
VIS shall not be transferred or made available to a third country or to an international organisation: certain types 
of data may be transferred or made available to a third country if necessary in individual cases for the purpose of 
proving the identity of third-country nationals, including for the purpose of return, and only where specific 
conditions are met in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of EU data protection. 
8 Available at the EMN websites´ ad-hoc query section: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-
do/networks/european_migration_network/index_en.htm 
9 A detailed assessment of the first years of experiences with the Return Fund is given in the spring 2014 
Commission ‘Report on the results achieved and on qualitative and quantitative aspects of implementation of the 
European Return Fund for the period 2008-2010’. 
 
4

 
Fund (AMIF) will build on experience gained over the last six years and will continue to offer 
financial support for efforts to meet the objectives of EU return policy, supporting - inter alia - 
alternative measures to detention, provision of social assistance, counseling and legal aid, 
specific assistance for vulnerable persons, independent and effective forced return monitoring, 
improvement of reception infrastructure, services and conditions as well as training of staff. 
 
Under the EU external cooperation instruments, the EU has also supported capacity building 
for non-EU countries for several aspects of return management, including the integration of 
returnees. Since 2005, the Commission has financed over 40 projects under EU development 
cooperation instruments which included a strong focus on capacity building for return and 
reintegration for an amount of more than EUR 70 million. 
 
 
4. Practical and operational cooperation 
 
4.1. Programmes promoting voluntary departure 
 
Key elements of sustainable return include voluntary return advice, tailor-made return 
packages, efficient reintegration assistance and information about the possibilities for legal 
migration. Relevant governmental and non-governmental actors, in particular the International 
Organization for Migration (IOM), have played an important role in facilitating voluntary 
departure by carrying out Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) programmes providing 
comprehensive return assistance, including activities aimed at ensuring sustainable 
reintegration in countries of origin. IOM is currently operating over 70 AVR projects in 26 
EU Member States. Over the last six years, approximately 148 000 migrants have been 
assisted to return voluntarily.  When running the programmes, IOM emphasised the 
importance of cooperating with countries of origin and maintaining a link to on-going efforts 
by the EU and Member States in addressing return and relevant migration matters through 
partnerships. The ratio between voluntary departure and forced return (according to 
FRONTEX 2013 annual risk analysis data10) in the EU in 2012 was about 44:56. Further 
promotion of voluntary departure will continue to be one of the main policy objectives of the 
EU’s return policy. 
 
4.2. Joint return operations coordinated by FRONTEX 
 
As part of operational cooperation measures between Member States, States increasingly used 
joint flights for removal. In this context, the FRONTEX agency played an important role as a 
vehicle for promoting joint return operations. Between 2006 and December 2013, FRONTEX 
coordinated 209 Joint Return Operations (JROs) returning 10 855 people.11  Since 2007, 
FRONTEX has provided standardised training for return officers focusing on safeguarding 
returnees’ fundamental rights and dignity during forced return operations.12 Since Article 8(6) 
of the Return Directive on forced return monitoring became binding in 2010, half of all JROs 
have been the subject of monitoring by independent monitors who were physically present 
from the start of the operation until arrival at the airport of destination. To date, these 
monitors have not reported any violation of returnees’ fundamental rights. 
 
                                                 
10 Published at: http://frontex.europa.eu/publications (‘FRAN’). 
11 Since 2010, the Commission ‘Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum’ provides for regular reporting on 
FRONTEX coordinated JROs. 
12 225 escort leaders have been trained between 2007 and 2013. 
 
5

 
Table 1: Monitoring of FRONTEX coordinated JROs: 
 
 Number 
of 
Number of Percentage  Percentage  Nationality of monitors 
JROs + 
JROs with 
of JROs of 
(NB: in some JROs 2 or 3 
overall 
monitors 
with 
returnees 
monitors were present) 
number of 
present on 
monitors 
in 
returnees 
board 
present 
monitored 
JROs 
2011  39 JROs with  23 JROs with  59 % 56 %  
AT: 15; NL: 7; UK: 4; 
2 059 
1 147 
LV: 3; BE: 2; DK: 1; FR: 
returnees 
returnees  
1; LU: 1 
2012  38 JROs with  23 JROs with  60 % 50 % 
AT: 21; NL: 3; LV: 2; 
2 110 
1 059 
LU: 1; NO: 1 
returnees 
returnees  
2013  39 JROs with  20 JROs with  51 % 44 % 
AT: 10; DE: 3; NL: 3; IE: 
2 152 
937 returnees 
1; UK: 1; CH: 1; BE:2; 
returnees 
ES:1; IS: 1; 
 
 
A FRONTEX Code of Conduct (CoC) for JROs was adopted on 7 October 2013, focusing on 
effective forced return monitoring procedures and respect of returnees’ fundamental rights 
and dignity during return operations. The CoC foresees that the monitor (an independent 
outside observer who frequently represents an NGO or another independent monitoring body 
entrusted by a Member State with forced return monitoring tasks under Article 8(6) of the 
Directive) will be given all necessary information in advance of the operation and will be 
involved in the return process from the pre-return phase (internal briefings) until the post-
return phase (debriefing). He/she will have access to all information and physical access to 
any place he wishes. The observations/reports of the monitor will be included in the reporting 
on the JRO. Even though this is not expressly required under current legislation, the 
Commission considers that given the visibility and sensitivity of such operations an 
independent monitor should be present in each JRO.  Therefore the revision of the CoC shall 
be considered as a matter of priority. 
 
An EU-financed project run by the International Centre for Migration Policy Development 
(ICMPD)13 currently seeks to further harmonise the different approaches to monitoring taken 
by Member States. It seeks to develop objective, transparent criteria and common rules for 
monitoring, and to provide a pool of independent monitors to Member States which may also 
be used in JROs. 
 
In 2012, the position of independent FRONTEX Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) was 
created and on 17 December 2012 the first FRO was appointed. The FRO’s role is to monitor, 
assess and make recommendations on the protection and guarantees of fundamental rights in 
all FRONTEX activities and operations including those related to JROs. The FRO should 
have access to all information on issues that impact on fundamental rights for all FRONTEX 
activities. 
                                                 
13 See: http://www.icmpd.org/Ongoing-Projects.1570.0.html. 
 
6

 
 
Part III -- Future developments 
 
EU return policy has developed considerably in recent years, mainly due to the transposition 
into national law and implementation by Member States of the Return Directive, which has 
led to improved and more consistent practice in this area. The implementation report, forming 
part of this Communication, shows that a number of shortcomings remain in several Member 
States, such as aspects of detention conditions in some Member States and an absence of 
independent forced return monitoring systems. In addition, there is scope for improvement in 
many Member States, with a more systematic use of alternatives to detention and the 
promotion of voluntary departure. 
 
The Commission will follow up on all shortcomings identified by the implementation report 
and will pay particular attention to the implementation by Member States of those provisions 
of the Directive which relate to the detention of returnees, safeguards and legal remedies, as 
well as the treatment of minors and other vulnerable persons in return procedures. The 
evaluation system established under the new Schengen Evaluation Mechanism, coordinated 
and supervised by the Commission, will provide new opportunities to examine and assess the 
concrete practices of Member States in these areas, and to check whether Member States are 
fully complying with the Directive and international human rights standards. 
 
Return policy alone cannot deal effectively with the management of irregular migration flows 
to the EU but needs to be part of a more comprehensive approach, including the GAMM, 
which puts an emphasis on:  
•  enhanced dialogue and cooperation with non-EU countries of origin and transit on 
migratory issues, with the objective of establishing partnerships based on mutual 
interests;  
•  increased practical cooperation amongst Member States, with FRONTEX, and with 
international organisations and NGOs;  
•  parallel enhancement of other tools and policies such as effective border management, 
fight against trafficking and smuggling; 
•  integration of foreign policy aspects into the EU migration policy and ensuring 
linkages between the internal and the external dimensions. The advantages offered by 
the EEAS' overview of EU's overall external relations should be exploited. 
 
Any future action aimed at developing EU return policy will thus have to take into account all 
of these aspects and elements. 
 
Future action will focus on the issues and suggestions set out below. 
 
1. Ensure proper and effective implementation of the Return Directive 
 
One of the key priorities for the future will be to strengthen monitoring of the implementation 
of the Return Directive. The Commission will systematically follow up on all shortcomings 
identified. Several EU Pilot procedures have already been initiated in relation to issues 
covered by this report and others will be launched in the near future. National courts already 
play a very positive role in this process, as a point of first reference for making Union law a 
reality in Member States and by asking, where necessary, for interpretation via references for 
preliminary ruling from the ECJ. 
 
 
7

 
Several parties will play an active role in further improving implementation of the Return 
Directive: 
 
   First and foremost, the Commission, as the Guardian of Union law, in accordance with 
its powers under Article 258 of the TFEU; 
 
 The Commission and Member States, by putting a stronger emphasis on compliance with 
the EU return acquis in the framework of the new Schengen Evaluation Mechanism
 
 National forced return monitoring bodies under Article 8(6) of the Directive, by fulfilling 
their role as the inbuilt control mechanism for day-to-day return practices; 
 
 
2. Promote more consistent and fundamental rights-compatible practices 
 
In addition to working to ensure a proper implementation of the acquis, the Commission 
intends developing a number of guidelines and recommendations on the issues below. 
These will promote more consistent return practices, fully compliant with fundamental rights 
standards. 
 
 The Commission will adopt within one year a ‘Return Handbook’, on which the Return 
Contact Group will be consulted. This will contain common guidelines, best practice and 
recommendations to be used by Member States’ competent authorities when carrying out 
return-related activities and as a point of reference for return-related Schengen evaluations. 
It will refer to the EU return acquis and relevant international standards such as those 
developed by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the UN Committee 
on the rights of the child General Comment No 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his 
or her best interests taken as a primary consideration and will address – inter alia – 
promotion of voluntary departure, proportionate use of coercive measures, forced return 
monitoring, postponement of removal, return of minors, effective legal remedies, safeguards 
pending return, human and dignified detention conditions as well as safeguards for 
vulnerable persons.   
 
   Fundamental rights compatible apprehension practices: The Commission will continue 
to address this issue in the Contact Group and will include recommendations in the Return 
Handbook, based on a 2012 Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) study. 
 
 Promotion of alternatives to detention: The European Migration Network will carry out a 
study in 2014 on alternatives to detention in order to identify and spread best practices in this 
area.   
 
 ‘Criminalisation’ of irregular stay of returnees: The Commission will take up ECJ case 
law in the Return Handbook on the limits and constraints upon Member States as regards 
criminal law sanctions for returnees. 
 
 ‘Non-removable’ returnees: The Commission will collect best practice, based on existing 
best practices at national level, to avoid protracted situations and to ensure that people who 
cannot be removed are not left indefinitely without basic rights and don´t risk being 
unlawfully re-detained. 

 
8

 
 
  Codified Council of Europe detention standards: The Commission supports the 
declaration of the European National Preventative Mechanisms against torture issued during 
the Conference on Immigration Detention in Europe (Strasbourg 21-22 November 2013) to 
call on the Council of Europe to codify a set of detailed immigration detention rules based on 
existing international and regional human rights standards applicable to deprivation of 
liberty on the grounds of immigration status. 
 
3. Further develop dialogue and cooperation with non-EU countries  
Cooperation with immigrants’ non-EU countries of origin and transit is essential to improve 
capacity for managing migration flows and to address challenges linked to the return of third-
country nationals who do not have (or who no longer have) a legal right to stay in the EU.   
 
The EU is engaged in a vast number of bilateral and regional dialogues and cooperation 
frameworks with non-EU countries in order to build mutually beneficial cooperation in this 
field. These cover a broad range of issues, from institution and capacity building and effective 
integration of legal migrants to return management and the effective implementation of 
readmission obligations. In line with the GAMM, countries of origin and transit should also 
be encouraged to provide international protection to persons in need thereof in accordance 
with international standards, to improve their asylum and reception capacities and the 
development of properly functioning migration systems as well as to protect migrants' 
fundamental rights paying special attention to vulnerable migrants, such as unaccompanied 
minors, victims of trafficking, women and children. Cooperation assistance should be 
provided to these countries to support their efforts in this regard, and the EU should expand 
its cooperation with relevant non-EU countries in order to build capacity in the field of return 
and readmission and to assist partner countries in their negotiation of readmission agreements 
with other non-EU countries. 
 
 
 Return policy will continue to be consistently included in implementing and developing 
the GAMM
, including the Mobility Partnerships and  Common Agendas on Migration and 
Mobility 
with non-EU
 countries; 
 
 Incentives: Care will be taken to ensure that cooperation on return, readmission and 
reintegration issues is part of a balanced and consolidated EU policy towards a non-EU 
country, based on shared interest, e.g. linked to enhanced mobility provisions and other 
policy areas such as trade, enterprise and industry. 
 
 Capacity building: Efforts to build capacity in non-EU countries in the field of return and 
readmission will be strengthened by, for example, improving the ability of the responsible 
authorities in partner countries to respond in a timely manner to readmission applications, 
identify the people to be returned, and provide appropriate assistance and reintegration 
support to those who are being returned. 
 
 Within the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund focus will be given to sustainable 
return and re-integration
 of irregular migrants in their countries of origin, including through 
developing the capacity of these countries to better manage return and reintegration.  
 

 
9

 
 The Commission will actively follow up on the challenges identified in the 2011 
Evaluation of EU Readmission agreements
, and its recommendations, such as the 
preference for voluntary return (rec no 13) and the launch of a pilot project to monitor the 
situation of persons after their return (rec no 15).  
 
 
4. Improve operational cooperation between Member States on return 
 
Fundamental rights compatible return procedures and coherent return policies will be 
enhanced by practical and operational cooperation in areas such as:  
•  promotion of voluntary departure;  
•  respect of the child’s best interests in return procedures; 
•  interaction between national monitoring bodies;  
•  improved statistics;  
•  exchange of personal data; 
•  issue of travel documents. 
 
 The Commission will use the European Migration Network as a platform to facilitate 
improved cooperation among States and stakeholders especially in the field of voluntary 
departure
, as a key tool for the gathering and sharing of information. 
 
 The Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund will focus on measures to encourage 
voluntary departure
, whilst taking care that voluntary return incentives do not develop an 
unwanted pull effect. Measures, in close cooperation with non-EU countries, to facilitate 
returnees’ obtaining necessary travel documents will also be promoted. 
 
 As regards transit by land of voluntary returnees, improvements could be made through 
the use of Annex 39 of the Schengen Handbook (Standard form for recognising a return 
decision for the purposes of transit by land). Those Member States which do not yet use this 
are encouraged to do so. 
 
 Further operational cooperation should be promoted between Member States and between 
Member States and non-EU countries in implementing return and reintegration processes 
applied to unaccompanied minors. Cooperation between child protection systems of Member 
States and non-EU countries should also be encouraged, making best use of the funding 
options in the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. 
 
 Emphasis will be given to improving return-related statistical information, in particular 
by making use of the detailed information which FRONTEX has started to obtain from 
Member States, considering ways to improve information on voluntary departures and 
encouraging more consistent data collection. 
 
 The Commission will encourage enhanced best practices exchange between national 
forced return monitoring bodies
 under Article 8(6) of the Directive, to foster more consistent 
monitoring, particularly in the context of FRONTEX coordinated joint operations 
 
 The potential of VIS and SIS in the field of return policy should be further enhanced. In 
particular the review of SIS II, due by 2016, will be an opportunity to improve consistency 
between the return policy and SIS II and to suggest introducing an obligation on Member 

 
10

 
States to enter a refusal of entry alert in SIS II for entry bans issued under the Return 
Directive. 
 
 Operational cooperation between Member States and Member States and non-EU 
countries will be promoted, focusing in particular on identification and issue of travel 
documents 
in compliance with data protection requirements.
 
 
 The European Migration Network will carry out a study in 2014 on ‘Good practices in the 
return and reintegration of irregular migrants: Member States’ entry bans, policy and use 
of readmission agreements
’. The aim of this study is to enhance the effectiveness of return 
policies by compiling and comparing Member States’ experiences related to these specific 
aspects of the return process. 
 
 
5. Enhance role of FRONTEX in the field of return 
 
There is a clear added value in performing certain operational aspects of return jointly at 
Union level. FRONTEX has a significant coordination role in this field and should continue 
to make use of it in a proactive manner. In performing its tasks, FRONTEX also has to make 
sure that operations are carried out in line with Union acquis and the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights.   
 
 FRONTEX should further increase coordination of JROs in a way which ensures that 
common standards related to humane and dignified treatment of returnees will be met in an 
exemplary way, going beyond mere compliance with legal obligations. As a matter of priority 
the Commission therefore asks FRONTEX to adapt its CoC on JROs and to spell out clearly 
that each JRO will be subject to independent monitoring. 
 
 FRONTEX is encouraged to further support Member States by offering training on return 
issues
 with a special focus on safeguarding returnees’ fundamental rights during the return 
procedure. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11

 
Part IV - Implementation Report: The impact of the Return Directive 2008/115/EC on 
Member States’ return policies and practices
 
 
The deadline for implementation of the Return Directive expired on 24 December 2010. All 
Member States, except UK and Ireland, as well as the four Schengen associated States are 
bound by the Directive. Four Member States (EE, ES, PT, SK) notified full transposition 
before the deadline. Nineteen Member States notified transposition in 2011, and five (BE, LT, 
NL, PL and SE) notified it in the course of 2012. The Commission opened 20 infringement 
procedures for non-communication, all of which were closed after Member States belatedly 
notified their national transposition measures14. Only Iceland has not yet notified full 
transposition. 
 
Since the Directive was adopted, the Commission services have held 14 Contact Group 
meetings15 with Member State experts. The aim of the Contact Group is to facilitate the 
identification of possible problems and remaining questions at an early stage and to offer an 
opportunity for open and informal discussion. These meetings contributed considerably to a 
consistent implementation of the Directive at national level. Inspired by the discussion at 
Contact Group level, six comparative studies16 were carried out relating to:  
1.  Minors in return procedures  
2.  Forced return monitoring 
3.  Reintegration of returnees 
4.  Situation of non-removable returnees 
5.  Proper legal transposition of the Return Directive by Member States 
6.  The practical impact of the Return Directive 
Based on the findings of the study on the transposition of the Return Directive into national 
law, the Commission carried out an organised programme of work on the transposition of 
the Return Directive (2012-2013)
, during which the Commission questioned Member States 
about any remaining issues with their transposition of the Directive. In technical bilateral 
meetings, details of identified shortcomings and possible solutions were discussed. These 
meetings and discussions proved to be very helpful and the majority of transposition issues 
were able to be settled. The remaining issues concerned, in particular, the following 
provisions:  
•  EU-wide effect of entry bans;  
•  definition of risk of absconding;  
•  criteria for prolonging the period of voluntary departure;  
•  rules to be respected when removing by air;  
                                                 
14 Links to the national transposition measures are available in the MNE section of EUR-Lex: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:72008L0115:EN:NOT 
15 The compiled minutes of these Contact Group meetings (in the form of a Q&A document) are accessible via 
the Register of Commission Expert Groups. 
16 Most of these studies are publicly available in the e-library of  DG HOME´s Europa website under: 
ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/categories/studies. 
 
12

 
•  forced return monitoring;  
•  criteria for imposing detention;  
•  detention conditions.  
With regard to these remaining issues, seven Member States have already amended their 
national law in order to comply with requests made by the Commission. Thirteen Member 
States are currently in the process of doing so and six Member States have committed 
themselves formally to changing their national legislation in the near future, subject to close 
supervision (bimonthly reporting) by the Commission. 
Tangible results of this organised programme have already materialised, notably in relation to 
detention:   
- Six Member States, out of the eleven that had not fully transposed Articles 3(7) and 15(1), 
changed their legislation to legally define objective criteria to assess whether there are reasons 
to believe that an irregular migrant will abscond. This helps limiting the number of migrants 
kept in detention. 
- Six Member States, out of the seven that had not fully transposed Article 15(4) of the 
Directive, have amended or are currently amending their national laws to provide that 
detention will cease if there is no reasonable prospect of removal. 
- Four Member States, out of the six that had thus far not allowed NGOs and international 
organisations to visit detention centres, have amended or are in the process of amending their 
laws. 
- Four Member States, out of the six who had not yet done so, have now revised their rules on 
the access to free legal assistance (Article 13(4)). 
- Thirteen Member States, out of the sixteen that had not transposed Article 8(6), have already 
or are currently adopting legislation to set up a forced return monitoring system; 
- Eleven Member States, out of the fourteen who had not yet done so, have formalised or are 
in the process of formalising the commitment that any removal by air will be carried out in 
line with the Common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air annexed to 
Decision 2004/573/EC. 
In those remaining cases in which it was not possible to find agreement and to obtain 
commitment from Member States to change their legislation in accordance with requests from 
the Commission, several EU Pilot procedures have already been launched. 
As regards the practical implementation of the Return Directive in Member States, a 
study was carried out in 2012-2013 and finalised in October 2013. This study was designed as 
a ‘meta-study’ based on different types of existing information and studies, as well as input 
from all relevant stakeholders.17  
                                                 
17 The stakeholders which had to be consulted by the contractors were: 
1. The judicial authorities/judges in charge of monitoring/hearing appeals on return policy (via national and 
international judges’ associations); 
2. The lawyers and institutions providing legal aid to returnees (via national and international lawyers’ 
associations); 
3. The return monitoring bodies (bodies established under Article 8(6) of the Return Directive); 
4. The stakeholders assisting migrants or advocating on their behalf (NGOs, advocacy bodies); 
 
13

 
 
To obtain a broader picture of the situation on the ground, the Commission has also examined 
focused studies and reports e.g. by the Fundamental Rights Agency, Council of Europe 
bodies, UNHCR, and NGOs (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Pro-Asyl and 
others) into the practical situation in Member States. A major difficulty encountered by this 
information collection exercise was that little quantitative data was systematically collected at 
Member State level on most of the issues covered by the study. For example, data on basic 
parameters such as average length of detention, grounds for detention, number of failed 
returns, and use of entry bans proved to be available in only a limited number of Member 
States. Moreover, common definitions and approaches concerning data collection are 
frequently absent, impacting on the comparability of such data across the EU. 
 
As highlighted above, the Commission will systematically follow up on all shortcomings 
identified by the present implementation report
. Several EU Pilot procedures have already 
been launched in relation to issues identified in this report and others will be launched in the 
near future. 
 
1. Detention of returnees for the purpose of removal 
 
a) Grounds for and length of detention (Article 15) 
 
Article 15 of the Directive states that third-country nationals subject to return procedures may 
only be kept in detention — for ‘as short a period as possible’, and ‘as long as removal 
arrangements are in progress’  — if there is a risk of absconding or if he/she avoids or 
hampers the preparation of return or the removal process. The detention, which must be 
ordered by a decision of administrative or judicial authorities, must be reviewed at 
‘reasonable intervals’ and must cease ‘when it appears that a reasonable prospect of removal 
no longer exists for legal or other considerations’. Member States must set a maximum limit 
of detention, which cannot exceed six months as a general rule and, in exceptional cases, 18 
months in total. ECJ case law has clarified several aspects of the Directive’s provisions on 
detention. In its judgment in case C-357/09 (Kadzoev), the ECJ expressly confirmed the 
protective elements of the detention-related articles of the Return Directive by highlighting 
that  detention ceases to be justified and the person concerned must be released 
immediately if there is no real prospect of removal to a non-EU country within the 
authorised maximum period of detention. Moreover the ECJ clarified that reasons of 
public order and safety cannot be used as justification for detention under the Return 
Directive.
 A judgment in case C 534-11 (Arslan) dealt with the relation between return-
related detention and asylum-related detention (under Directive 2003/9) and clarified that the 
existence of the two differing regimes does not imply an obligation on Member States to 
automatically release detained returnees once they make an asylum application, 
provided that States take a prompt decision under national law to continue detention in 
compliance with the asylum acquis

 
The assessment has shown that, while Member States have generally amended their 
legislation to ensure it is in line with Article 15, there is great variation as regards practical 
implementation. For example, the interpretation of what constitutes ‘reasonable intervals’ by 
which reviews of detention are to take place varies considerably. Reviews in some Member 
States take place on a weekly basis, whereas in others it is only guaranteed at the end of the 
                                                                                                                                                         
5. The stakeholders commenting on / studying return policy (NGOs, academia, etc.); 
6. International organisations (UNHCR, IOM, Red Cross, etc.) with an interest on return issues. 
 
14

 
detention period (thus up to six months). This therefore constitutes an area where more 
consistency is needed, and where several stakeholders have called for further guidance on the 
interpretation of ‘reasonable intervals’. 
 
On the other hand, the practice is more uniform as regards the grounds for imposing 
detention on returnees, 
where the risks of absconding and/or hampering return are the main 
reasons in most Member States. Another frequently cited reason is the need to clarify 
documentation and identification of the person in question in cooperation with non-EU 
countries. The concept of ‘risk of absconding’, of Article 3(7) of the Directive, has had an 
impact on Member States’ definition and use of criteria upon which decisions to detain are 
based, thereby contributing — to varying extent — to more legal security. In the majority of 
Member States, the ‘lack of documentation’ provided by returnees or the ‘use of false 
identity’ are the main grounds on which the risk of absconding is assessed. Other frequently 
used criteria for assessing the risk of absconding are:  
•  use of false documents or destruction of documents;  
•  lack of residence;  
•  explicit expression of intent of non-compliance;  
•  existence of convictions for criminal offences.   
 
Table 2: Criteria to assess the ‘risk of absconding’ 
 
Number of Member 
Frequently used criteria for determining ‘risk of absconding’ 
States applying the 
criteria 
Lack of documentation  
13
No cooperation to determinate his/ her identity  
11
Lack of residence  
7
Use of false documentation or destroying existing documents  
7
Failing repeatedly to report to relevant authorities   
7
Explicit expression of intent of non-compliance 
6
Existence of conviction for criminal offence 
6
Non-compliance with existing entry ban  
5
Violation of a return decision  
5
Prior conduct (i.e. escaping) 
4
Lack of financial resources  
4
Being subject of return decision made in another MS  
4
Non-compliance with voluntary departure obligation  
3
Source: extracted from MATRIX 2013. 
 
It is to be noted that there has also been a consistent movement towards a wider 
implementation of alternatives to detention
 across the Member States examined. A large 
number of Member States now provide for alternatives to detention in their national 
legislation. Research has shown that alternatives to detention can have several benefits 
compared to detention and can also, under certain conditions, lead to significant cost savings. 
In practice, however, several Member States only apply alternatives to detention in rare cases. 
The main alternatives applied in practice seem to be requiring ‘regular reporting to 
authorities’ and an ‘order to take up accommodation in premises specified by the authorities’. 
The ‘obligation to surrender passports and documents’ is also among the most frequently 
applied alternatives to detention. 
 
15

 
 
Table 3: Legal and practical application of alternatives to detention 
 
 
Residence restrictions 
Regular reporting to 
Obligation to surrender 
Deposit of financial 
Electronic monitoring 
authorities 
documents 
guarantee 
 Legal Practical 
Legal 
Practical 
Legal 
Practical 
Legal 
Practical 
Legal 
Practical 
application  application  application  application  application  application  application  application  application  application 
AT 
yes yes yes yes  no  no  yes yes  no  no 
BE18 
no no no no no no no no no no 
BG 
no  no  yes n.i. yes n.i.  no  no  no  no 
CY 
no no no no no no no no no no 
CZ 
no  no yes yes no  no yes no  no  no 
DE 
yes n.i. yes yes yes yes  no  no  no  no 
DK 
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes  no  yes  no 
EE 
yes yes yes yes yes yes  no  no  no  no 
EL 
yes no yes no yes no yes no  no  no 
ES 
yes n.i. yes n.i. yes yes  no  no  no  no 
FI 
no  no  yes n.i. yes n.i. yes n.i.  no  no 
FR 
yes n.i. yes no yes yes no  no yes n.i. 
HU 
yes n.i. yes n.i. yes n.i.  no  no  no  no 
IT 
yes n.i. yes n.i. yes n.i. yes n.i.  no  no 
LT 
yes yes yes yes no no no no no no 
LU 
yes no yes no  no  no  no  no  no  no 
LV 
no no yes yes yes yes no no no no 
MT 
no no yes yes no no yes yes no no 
NL 
yes n.i. yes n.i. yes n.i. yes yes  no  no 
PL 
yes no yes no  no  no  no  no  no  no 
PT 
yes n.i. yes n.i. yes n.i. yes n.i. yes n.i. 
RO 
yes n.i. yes n.i.  no  no  no  no  no  no 
SE 
yes n.i. yes n.i. yes n.i.  no  no  no  no 
SI 
yes yes yes yes yes no yes no  no  no 
SK 
yes no yes no  no  no yes no  no  no 
CH 
yes no yes yes yes no yes no  no  no 
IS 
yes n.i. yes yes yes n.i.  no  no  no  no 
LI 
yes yes no no yes yes no no no no 
NO 
yes n.i. yes n.i. yes n.i.  no  no  no  no 
IE 
yes n.i. yes yes yes n.i. yes  no  no  no 
UK 
yes n.i. yes n.i. yes n.i. yes n.i. yes n.i. 
n.i.: ‘no information available’ 
Source: extracted from MATRIX 2013 
 
In most Member States, there is a lack of public support structures for irregular migrants 
who are released from detention because no reasonable prospect of removal exists. In the 
absence of a concrete legal obligation on Member States to provide for material subsistence to 
this group of people, they find themselves in a ‘legal limbo’ situation, left to rely on the 
private or voluntary sectors, or potentially being forced to resort to non-authorised 
employment for subsistence. A few Member States are currently setting a good example, 
providing a monthly allowance and helping these people to find accommodation. 
 
Before the Return Directive was adopted, the maximum length of detention varied quite 
significantly across Member States and in at least nine there was no upper ceiling on how 
                                                 
18 While Belgium does not apply any of the listed alternatives to detention, since 2008 it has offered special 
housing and counselling for families, which has been singled out as a best practice in a recent NGO publication. 
 
16


 
long returnees could be detained. The Return Directive has contributed to a convergence — 
and overall to a reduction — of maximum detention periods across the EU. 
 
Table 4: Maximum length of detention before and after transposition of Return Directive 
 
Source: MATRIX 2013. 
 
While the legal time limits of detention have increased in eight Member States, they have 
decreased in 12 Member States. It is to be noted that the average length of detention applied 
in practice appears to be considerably lower than the maximum limit provided for. 
 
Table 5: Length of detention experienced in practice 
 
Length of detention in practice 
MS 
Source 
Period 
(in days) 
AT 16.6* 
National 
Statistics 
2012 
BG 
64* 
Study by NGO 
2011 
DE 
Less than 42*** 
National Statistics 
2011 
DK 
31* 
Study by NGO 
2011 
EE 85* 
National 
Statistics 
2011 
EL 
At least 180** 
International Organisation  
2012 
FI 5-6** 
National 
Public 
Authorities 

FR 13* 
National 
Public 
Authorities 

IT 
31* 
Public Authorities in the city of Bologna 

LU 16* 
National 
Public 
Authorities 

NL 
120-180** 
NGO and International Organisation 

RO 50* 
National 
Statistics 
2012 
SE 
Less than 14** 
Ministry of Justice 

IS 
1** 
Public Authorities and NGOs 

LI 
1-2** 
Public Authorities and NGOs 

 
17

 
Length of detention in practice 
MS 
Source 
Period 
(in days) 
UK 7** 
National 
Public 
Authorities 

* Average calculated on the basis of available data. The source of the data is provided in the third column from the left. 
** The most frequently applied length of detention estimated by stakeholders interviewed. 
*** In Germany 73 % of detainees are kept for less than 42 days according to official statistics.
 
Source: Matrix 2013. 
 
b) Detention conditions, including of minors and families (Articles 16 and 17) 
 
The Directive sets some basic conditions that must be respected in relation to the detention of 
returnees, such as the fact that their detention must take place in specialised facilities (not 
prisons) or at least they should be kept separated from ordinary prisoners. Returnees kept in 
detention must be provided with emergency health care and essential treatment of illness and 
must be allowed to contact legal representatives, family members and consular authorities. 
NGOs and bodies must be allowed to visit returnees, subject to any requirements set by 
Member States for advance authorisation. Returnees must be adequately informed of their 
rights and obligations. As regards minors (both unaccompanied and with their families— 
who must be detained only as a measure of ‘last resort’ and for the ‘shortest appropriate 
period of time’ — their needs must be taken particularly into account (the ‘best interests of 
the child shall be a primary consideration’), and they must have the opportunity to engage in 
leisure activities and (depending on the length of their stay) have access to education. 
 
The Directive does not regulate in detail issues such as the size of rooms, access to sanitary 
facilities, access to open air, nutrition, etc. during detention. Recital 17 provides, however, 
that detainees should be treated in a ‘humane and dignified manner’ with respect for their 
fundamental rights and in compliance with international law. Whenever Member States 
impose detention under Articles 15-17 of the Directive, this must be done under conditions 
that comply with Article 4 of the EU Charter, which prohibits inhuman or degrading 
treatment. The practical impact of this obligation on Member States is set out in detail in the 
standards established by the Council of Europe Committee on the Prevention of Torture 
(‘CPT standards’19). These standards represent a generally recognised description of the 
detention-related obligations which must be complied with by Member States in any detention 
as an absolute minimum, in order to ensure compliance with European Convention on Human 
Rights obligations and obligations resulting from the EU Charter when applying EU law. The 
Commission will follow the situation closely and will, in particular, use the possibilities 
offered by the new Schengen Evaluation Mechanism to evaluate facilities used by Member 
States for pre-removal detention to make sure these benchmarks are met by all Member 
States. In order to address the most striking cases of inhuman detention conditions, EU Pilot 
procedures against several Member States have already been launched by the Commission in 
recent months. 
 
Nine Member States have legislation that does not fully comply with Article 16(1), which 
requires States to strictly separate detainees from ordinary prisoners. Two of these 
Member States have committed themselves to changing their legislation. EU Pilot procedures 
have already been opened or will have to be opened against the other Member States 
concerned. In practice, only half of Member States always provide specialised detention 
facilities. The other half still detains, occasionally or frequently, irregular migrants in prisons. 
In this regard, German courts submitted three preliminary references to the ECJ in 2013: In 
cases C 473-13 (Bero) and C 514-13 (Bouzalmate) the Court was asked whether a Member 
                                                 
19 document CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 — Rev. 2013, available at: www.cpt.coe.int/en/docsstandards.htm 
 
18

 
State is obliged under 16(1) of the Directive to only detain returnees in specialised detention 
facilities if it only possesses specialised detention facilities in some of its regional sub-entities 
(but not in others). Case C-474/13 (Thi Ly Pham) concerns the compatibility with Article 
16(1) of a national administrative practice to place a pre-removal detainee in accommodation 
together with ordinary prisoners if he/she consents to such accommodation. These three cases 
are still pending at ECJ. 
 
The obligation under Article 16(2) to allow detainees to contact legal representatives, 
family members and consular authorities
 was properly transposed by all Member States. 
Evidence collected suggests that in practice this opportunity is not always provided in two 
Member States. The obligation under Article 16(3) to ensure that access to health services in 
emergency situations is guaranteed 
was also transposed by all Member States. There are, 
however, allegations that in six Member States access to this right is occasionally impaired in 
practice. The Commission will follow up on all identified shortcomings. 
 
The legal transposition of the self-standing right under Article 16(4) of national, international 
and non-governmental organisations and bodies to have full access to detention centres is 
still problematic in seven Member States. Three of these Member States have already 
committed themselves to amending their legislation. Practice in four other Member States 
does not seem to be fully compliant. 
 
Legislation in all Member States complies with the rules in Article 17 on detention of minors 
and families
. However in practice, shortcomings were reported to exist with regard to 
separate accommodation for families in two Member States, access to leisure activities in 
three Member States, and access to education in five Member States. With regard to the 
practical use made of the provision under Article 17 to detain minors as a measure of last 
resort, the evaluation findings reveal that seventeen Member States detain — at least 
sometimes — unaccompanied minors and nineteen Member States detain — at least 
sometimes — families with minors. Since the definition of ‘measure of last resort’ in the 
Return Directive leaves scope for interpretation, some stakeholders have suggested that 
Member States should be encouraged to include in their national law a presumption against 
detention of children, and to use alternatives to detention for unaccompanied minors and 
families with children. 
 
With regard to assistance to unaccompanied minors (Article 10)the evaluation has shown 
that this is provided in very different ways and by a variety of different bodies. 
 
Table 6: Authority responsible for offering assistance to unaccompanied minors (UAMs) 
 
 
n
 
 
 

Countries 
NGOs 
International 
Organisatio
for Migration 
Institution 
specialised in 
irregular UAMs 
Government
Department
General Youth 
or Social 
Services 
Local 
Government
General 
Asylum or 
Immigrant 
Services 
Prosecutor or 
Court 
Police or 
Border Guards 
No institutio
formally in 
charge  
AT   
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
BE   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BG   
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
CZ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CY   
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
19

 
 
n
 
 
 

Countries 
NGOs 
International 
Organisatio
for Migration 
Institution 
specialised in 
irregular UAMs 
Government
Department
General Youth 
or Social 
Services 
Local 
Government
General 
Asylum or 
Immigrant 
Services 
Prosecutor or 
Court 
Police or 
Border Guards 
No institutio
formally in 
charge  
DE   
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
DK 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EE 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
EL 
 
   
 
 
 
 
   
 
ES 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
FI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FR 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
HU 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
IT 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LU 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LV 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
MT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NL 
  
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
PL 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
   
PT 
  
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
RO 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SI 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
SK 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CH 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
IS 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
LI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NO20 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IE 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
UK 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
Source: MATRIX 2013. 
 
While most Member States do return minors in practice, only seven Member States report 
having used the option of returning UAMs to reception centres or social services in their 
country of origin. 
 
The main areas of change in the field of detention due to the implementation of the Return 
Directive were found to be the following: 
 
Table 7: Main areas of change in detention due to implementation of Return Directive 
 
Change 
Member State 
Shorter length of time in detention 
BG, CZ, DK, EE, LT, LV, RO, SI, SK, NO 
Longer length of time in detention 
EL, ES, FI, FR, IT, LU 
                                                 
20 European Commission (2013) Conformity Assessment of Directive 2008/115/EC Norway. Version 3.0 – 20.06.2013. 
Unpublished Article 10(1). 
 
20

 
Specific policy on minors and families with minors (and 
AT, CZ, SI 
vulnerable persons) 
Better conditions in detention centres 
DK, LU, LV, RO, 
Specialised detention facilities/ separation from 
DE, DK, LU 
prisoners 
Use of alternatives 
BE,DE, LV, NL 
Provide legal counselling 
AT, SK 
Fixed time limit judicial review/ decision of court 
CZ, SK 
Possibility to appeal 
LV 
Decision in writing 
DK 
Source: MATRIX 2013. 
 
 
2. Voluntary departure (Article 7) and monitoring of forced return (Article 8(6)) 
 
The introduction of the Return Directive has positively influenced national law and practice 
regarding voluntary departure. Article 7 obliges Member States to allow an appropriate 
period for voluntary departure of between seven and thirty days. In some Member States, a 
period for voluntary departure was not previously provided for in national law, or the length 
was not specified. All Member States have now introduced such a limit. In the majority of 
Member States examined, the voluntary departure period is provided automatically; only 
three Member States made use of the option under Article 7(1) of the Directive to grant the 
period only upon application.  In October 2013, a Dutch court submitted a preliminary 
reference to the ECJ (case C-554/13) related to the provision in Article 7(4) not to grant a 
period of voluntary departure for public order reasons. 
 
The study also demonstrates that the Return Directive has been a driver for change in forced 
return monitoring
. A large number of Member States have established monitoring bodies as 
a direct result of the Directive, often with support from the European Return Fund. Seven 
Member States were not compliant with the obligation to set up a forced return monitoring 
system and the Commission has already opened (or will open shortly) related EU Pilot 
procedures. In those Member States with a monitoring body in place, there tends to be a broad 
split with monitoring done by civil society (human rights NGOs), Ombudsmen or authorities 
with ties to a national Ministry. Monitoring systems are provided for either by law or by 
cooperation agreement. The evaluation demonstrates that the Return Directive has had 
substantial impact in the establishment of return monitoring bodies and that there are on-going 
developments as monitoring systems are becoming more established. These monitoring 
bodies will play an important role as an inbuilt control mechanism for national day-to-day 
return practices. 
 
Table 8: Forced return monitoring bodies 
 
Country 
Monitoring Body 
Type of Monitoring Body 
AT 
√ 
Ombudsman and NGO 
BE 
√ 
Body affiliated to the Belgian Police 
BG 
√21 
Ombudsman and NGO  
CY 
√ 
Ombudsman 
CZ 
√ 
Body affiliated to the Czech Parliament 
                                                 
21 Proposed only (2012 data via FRA). 
 
21

 
Country 
Monitoring Body 
Type of Monitoring Body 
DE 
Informal 
NGO 
DK 
√ 
Ombudsman and NGO 
EE 
√ 
NGO 
EL 
√ 
Ombudsman 
ES 
√ 
Ombudsman 
FI 
√ 
Ombudsman 
FR 
No 

HU 
√ 
Ombudsman 
IT 
No 

LT 
√ 
NGO 
LU 
√ 
NGO 
LV 
√ 
Ombudsman 
√ 
Body affiliated to the Ministry of Home affairs and National 
MT 
Security 
NL 
√ 
Body affiliated to the Ministry of Security and Justice 
PL 
√ 
Ombudsman and NGO 
PT 
√ 
Body affiliated to the Ministry of Home Affairs 
RO 
√ 
NGO 
No 
The Courts, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor 
SE 
of Justice partly perform the function of a monitoring body 
SI 
No22 

SK 
√ 
Ombudsman and NGO 
CH  
√ 
Body affiliated to the Federal Department of Justice and Police 
IS 
No 

LI 
No 

NO 
√ 
Ombudsman 
IE 
No 

UK 
√ 
Bodies affiliated to the Ministry of Justice 
Source: MATRIX 2013. 
 
 
3. Safeguards (Articles 12 and 14) and remedies (Article 13) 
 
The evaluation found that the majority of the Member States examined make use of the option 
to  apply derogations from the scope of the Directive under its Article 2(2).23 The 
evaluation found that protective obligations under Article 4(4) are applied in the majority of 
the cases and that there is a similar level of protection between those third-country nationals 
falling under the scope of the Directive and ‘border cases’ excluded by Member States from 
its scope. 
 
The evaluation found that the procedural safeguards related to the rights of irregular 
migrants during the return process are broadly implemented in the national law of Member 
                                                 
22 A dual monitoring system is currently debated in government which envisages monitoring by the Ombudsman along with 
NGOs. 
23 Article 2(2)(a) allows MS not to apply the Directive in certain ‘border situations’ (people refused entry at the 
border and people apprehended in connection with an irregular border crossing). In this case a set of basic 
minimum safeguards listed in Article 4(4) still applies. Article 2(2)(b) allows MS not to apply the Directive in 
certain ‘criminal law situations’ people subject to return as a criminal law sanction or people who are the subject 
of extradition procedures). 
 
22

 
States. The research findings show that the safeguards of Article 12(1) of the Directive 
regarding the form of the return decision (in writing, providing reasons in fact and in law and 
information on available legal remedies) are also generally applied in practice. However some 
concerns were raised among stakeholders regarding the formulation of the grounds for the 
decision (lack of detail and motivation). In almost half of the Member States applying the 
Directive, stakeholders flagged up translation (of the main elements of the return decision) 
and, to a lesser extent, interpretation as areas for potential improvement. 
 
The evaluation was unable to detect major trends or to measure change over time with regard 
to safeguards pending postponed return. (Article 14 of the Directive covers family unity, 
health care, access to schooling, needs of vulnerable persons as well as the right to obtain a 
written confirmation in cases of postponed return.) Basic safeguards appear to be primarily 
provided by implementing international conventions and universal access legislation 
(emergency health care and schooling, in particular). 
 
Regarding the obligation for Member States to provide returnees with an effective legal 
remedy
, pursuant to Article 13, the evaluation concludes that, even though a legal provision 
for appeal exists in national law of all Member States, in practice a number of factors come 
into play that can compromise the right to a real legal remedy. Firstly information about the 
available remedies is — in spite of proper legal transposition of the Directive — not always 
sufficiently communicated in practice to third-country nationals in all Member States in a 
language the returnee understands (translation and explanation/legal aid issue). Secondly, 
related to the previous point, the possibility of an effective appeal may be reduced due to 
ineffective provision of legal aid, in cases in which Member States make extensive use of the 
provision under Article 13(4) of the Directive to make free legal aid subject to conditions 
listed in Articles 15(3) to (6) of Directive 2005/85/EC. The evaluation found that as a result, 
in several Member States return decisions were not often appealed in practice, or to a lesser 
extent than expected. The Commission will closely follow up on this issue. 
 
The Directive allows Member States to decide whether an appeal has an automatic suspensive 
effect
, or whether such effect may only be granted on a case by case basis by the appeals 
body. The evaluation found that an appeal generally temporarily suspends enforcement of the 
return and/or removal decision automatically under national law in only nine Member States. 
In most Member States the immigrant has to apply for the temporary suspending effect, which 
can be rejected (or granted) by the judge in specific circumstances. 
 
Table 9: Suspensive effect of an appeal 
 
Temporary suspensive effect of enforcement 
of return decision when appeal is lodged 
 
Yes: Automatic  
AT, CZ, DK, FR, LT, MT, PL, RO, SI, UK 
Sometimes: In a decision of a competent 
BE, BG, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, HU, IT, 
judicial or administrative authority  
LU, LV, NL, PT, SE, SK, CH, LI, IS, NO, 
IE 
Source: MATRIX 2013. 
 
 
23

 
In this respect, it is important to stress that the ECJ, in its judgment in case C- 383/13 PPU (G 
and R),24 confirmed that the rights of the defendant referred to in Article 41(2) of the EU 
Charter 
(the right to be heard and the right to have access to the file) must be observed when 
taking decisions under the Return Directive even when this Directive does not expressly 
provide for these. 
 
4. Criminalisation of irregular entry and stay 
 
The findings of the evaluation as well as a recent study conducted by FRA show that there are 
laws in place criminalising ‘irregular entry and/or stay’, in different forms, in the majority 
of Member States. Neither the Return Directive nor any other EU legal instrument prevent 
Member States from considering irregular entry and/or stay as a criminal offence under their 
national criminal law. However, several ECJ judgments have limited and constrained Member 
States’ ability to keep returnees in prison as a consequence of this. In particular, in case C-
61/11 (El Dridi) the ECJ found that the Return Directive precludes national rules 
criminalising irregular stay in so far as such rules undermine the effectiveness of the Return 
Directive. In this respect, the ECJ found that imposing a prison term on an irregularly staying 
third-country national who has committed no other offence than not complying with an order 
to leave the national territory is contrary to the Directive. A judgment in a similar case (C-
329/11 Achoughbabian) confirmed the findings of the El Dridi judgment and found that 
national law sanctioning mere irregular stay with a threat of criminal law imprisonment was 
incompatible with the Return Directive. The judgment in case C-430/11 (Sagor) confirmed 
that the criminal law sanction of a financial fine which may be replaced by an expulsion order 
can be applied, provided that the expulsion procedure respects all relevant procedural 
safeguards of the Return Directive, and that the criminal law sanction of home detention can 
be applied only insofar as there are guarantees in place to make sure that its conduct does not 
delay return. 
 
The above-mentioned rulings have resulted in a wide range of changes to national 
legislation
 in the countries examined and several Member States have recently changed their 
legislation as a consequence of this jurisprudence. The Commission is following the situation 
closely and has already launched EU Pilot procedures against certain Member States.  
 
 
                                                 
24 Two other pending preliminary references — C 166/13 (Mukarubega) and C 249/13 (Boudjilida) — relate to 
similar questions. 
 
24



 
Table 10: Criminalisation of irregular entry 
 
 
 
Source: FRA 2014. 
 
 
Table 11: Criminalisation of irregular stay 
 
Source: FRA 2014. 
 
 
25

 
 
5. Launch of return procedures (Article 6) and entry bans (Article 11) 
With regard to Article 6 of the Return Directive there is a high level of consistency between 
Member States on the definition of irregular stay. In most Member States, national 
legislation provides detailed lists of circumstances under which a third-country national can 
be considered to be irregularly staying, the five main categories being: expired visa; expired 
residence permit; revocation of residence permit; withdrawal of refugee status; irregular 
entrance. Most Member States apply more favourable rules to person's subject of a pending 
procedure for obtaining or renewing a permit or visa. The majority of Member States has 
opted for a one-step procedure where the return decision and the removal decision are issued 
in a single (administrative) act, only nine Member States (IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, SE, IS, IE, 
UK) have a two-step procedure in place. The Directive has also brought more EU-wide 
harmonisation regarding the issue of residence permits or other authorisation offering a right 
to stay for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons
 to third-country nationals 
staying irregularly on their territory: All Member States allow for this possibility in their legal 
framework. The obligation to launch a return procedure has not substantially altered the 
practice of apprehension of third-country nationals and numbers of apprehensions. Whether a 
Member State seeks irregular third-country nationals through mainstream actions by the 
general police or on an ad hoc basis is not determined by the Directive, but instead depends 
on domestic factors and considerations.  Since the Directive does not explicitly define the 
concept of apprehension nor provides guidance on how to carry out such procedures, 
Member States have left the existing institutional settings almost unchanged. There are two 
main types of apprehension practices in Member States: First, apprehension on the basis of 
routine police controls or targeted operations on sites where there is a reasonable suspicion 
that undocumented migrants are present. Second, apprehensions initiated at the request of the 
immigration authorities with regard to persons not respecting an order to leave the territory or 
not complying with a decision to depart voluntarily.  
 
The Return Directive requires Member States to issue an entry ban with a return decision 
when no period of voluntary departure has been granted25 or when the obligation to return has 
not been complied with. In other cases, the issue of an entry ban is optional. In terms of 
determining the length of the entry ban, all relevant circumstances must be taken into account, 
and the maximum duration of five years may be exceeded only if the person represents a 
serious threat to public policy, public security or national security. The evaluation showed that 
overall the Return Directive contributed to convergence across Member States regarding the 
(maximum)  length of return-related  entry bans of five years, as provided for in Article 
11(2) of the Directive. Most Member States also determine a maximum length of entry bans 
for cases where the returnee is regarded as a threat to national security and where, in 
accordance with the Directive, the length can exceptionally exceed five years. In eight 
Member States, the length of entry bans was reduced as a result of the implementation of the 
Directive. However, the research also revealed that in six Member States, the number of entry 
bans that are issued to returnees has increased. In practice, all Member States offer the 
opportunity for irregular migrants to request withdrawal or suspension of the entry ban in 
exceptional humanitarian circumstances. Every entry ban decision is entered into the 
Schengen Information System, preventing migrants from re-entering the Schengen area. In its 
                                                 
25 This may be the case when there is a risk of absconding, or if an application for a legal stay has been dismissed 
as manifestly unfounded or fraudulent, or if the person concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or 
national security. 
 
26

 
judgment in case C 297/12 (Filev/Osmani) the ECJ reaffirmed that the maximum time-limits 
for entry bans provided in the Directive also apply to ‘historic entry bans’ which had been 
issued before the entry into force of the Directive. 
 
Table 12: Entry bans 
 
Grounds for use of entry bans  
MSs making use of these grounds 
Entry ban is automatically imposed on all 
AT, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, IT, LT, MT, PL, 
return decision cases 
PT, IS, IE, UK 
Entry ban is not imposed in all cases but is (at  BE, BG, CZ, DK, FI, HU, LU, LV, NL, 
least) automatically issued (a) if no period for  RO, SE, SK, CH, NO 
voluntary departure has been granted 
(b) if the obligation to return has not been 
complied with 
Entry bans are issued on a case by case basis 
FR, SI, LI 
(different grounds) 
 
Changes due to Return Directive 
Member State 
Reduction in length of entry bans 
DE, ES, IT, LV, PL, PT, CH, NO 
Increased number of entry bans issued 
AT, BE, DK, FI, NL, CH 
Specific regulation on entry bans/ 
LT, MT, SI 
standardisation throughout the country 
Possibility of withdrawal 
ES, PL 
Entry ban in writing 
LU, PL 
Decreased number of entry bans issued 
SK 
Source: MATRIX 2013. 
 
 
6. ECJ case law related to the Return Directive 
Over the last five years, national Courts submitted several preliminary references related to 
the interpretation of the Return Directive to the ECJ: 
 
On detention:  
In its judgement in case C-357/09 (Kadzoev) of 30 November 2009 the ECJ expressly 
confirmed the protective elements of the detention related provisions of the Return Directive, 
in particular the obligation to release the person concerned immediately once the grounds 
prescribed by the Directive are not fulfilled any more.  
 
Three preliminary references from German courts were submitted in summer 2013: In cases C 
473-13 (Bero) and C 514-13 (Bouzalmate) (pending) the Court was asked whether a Member 
State is obliged under Article 16(1) of the Directive to only detain returnees in specialised 
detention facilities if it disposes of specialised detention facilities only in some of its regional 
sub entities (and in others not).  Case C-474/13 (Thi Ly Pham) (pending) concerns the 
compatibility with Article 16(1) of the Directive with a national administrative practice to 
place a pre-removal detainee in accommodation together with ordinary prisoners if he/she 
consents to such accommodation 
 
 
27

 
On criminalisation of irregular stay:  
On 28 April 2011, the ECJ delivered a judgement in case C-61/11 (El Dridi). In this far 
reaching judgement, the ECJ found that the Return Directive precludes national rules 
imposing a prison term on an illegally staying third-country national who does not comply 
with an order to leave the national territory, because such penalty is liable to jeopardise the 
attainment of the objective of introducing an effective policy for removal and repatriation in 
keeping with fundamental rights. A judgement in a similar case (case C-329/11 
Achoughbabian) related to the situation in France was delivered in December 2011. It 
confirmed the findings of the El Dridi judgement and found national law sanctioning illegal 
stay
 with a threat of criminal law imprisonment incompatible with the Return Directive. The 
judgement in case C-430/11 (Sagor) (related to compatibility of provisions of Italian national 
legislation imposing the penal sanctions of assignment to stay at home and immediate 
expulsion for illegal stay) was delivered in December 2012 and further refined the ECJs case 
law on this issue. In its order of 21.3.2013 in case C-522/11 (Mbaye) the ECJ referred to the 
above case-law and repeated its conclusions. Case C 189/13 (Da Silva) (pending) is a follow-
up case to Achoughbabian and relates to compatibility of Return Directive with national law 
sanctioning illegal entry with a threat of criminal law imprisonment. 
 
On relation between Return Directive and Asylum acquis:  
The May 2013 judgment in case C 534-11 (Arslan) dealt with the relation between return 
related detention (under Directive 2008/115/EC) and Asylum related detention (under 
Directive 2003/9/EC) in a situation where a third-country national is detained under the 
Return Directive and submits an application for asylum with the objective of postponing 
return. The judgment confirms that asylum-related detention and return-related detention are 
covered by two different legal regimes with respective legal safeguards adapted to the specific 
situation of asylum seekers and returnees. The Court made clear that the existence of these 
two differing regimes doesn´t imply an obligation on Member State to automatically release 
detained returnees once they make an asylum application: The judgement expressly confirms 
that detention may be continued – provided Member States take without delay a decision 
under national law to continue detention in compliance with the asylum acquis. 
 
On entry bans:  
A judgement of 19.9.2013, in case C 297/12 (Filev/Osmani) relates to the validity of 
"historic" entry bans issued before the entry into force of the return directive as well as rules 
on the length of entry bans. In this judgement the ECJ  
- confirmed that Article 11(2) precludes a provision of national law which makes the 
limitation of the length of an entry ban subject to making an application seeking to obtain the 
benefit of such a limit. 
- clarified that an entry ban which was handed down more than five years before the date of 
the entry into force of the national legislation implementing that directive cannot develop 
further effects, unless the person constitutes a serious threat to public order, public security or 
national security. 
- precludes Member States from excluding under Article 2(2)(b) of that directive persons 
which during the date on which that directive should have been implemented and the date on 
which it was implemented, benefited from more favourable direct effect of the Directive. 
 
On voluntary departure:  
A preliminary reference from the Dutch Raad van State was lodged in October 2013 in case 
C-554/13 (Zh. and O.) (pending), related to the interpretation of the notion of "risk to public 
policy" as a reason for not granting a period of voluntary departure in the context of Article 7. 
 
28

 
 
 
On right to be heard (Article 41 of the EU Charter) in Return Directive context:  
-Two preliminary references from French judges on this issue were submitted in spring 2013: 
In cases C 166/13 (Mukarubega) and C 249/13 (Boudjilida) (pending) the Court was asked 
whether the right to be heard before a decision is taken under Article 41(2) of the Charter 
applies to return procedures (Mukarubega) and to specify the exact extent of this right 
(Boudjilida).   
 
In its judgement of 10.9.2013 in case C- 383/13 PPU (G and R), the Court confirmed that the 
rights of the defence are to be respected when deciding on the extension of detention. It 
clarified that not every irregularity in the observation of the rights of the defence brings about 
the annulment of the decision. Such effect would only take place if the national court 
considers that the infringement at issue actually would have led to a different outcome. 
 
29

 
Part V - Conclusions 
 
This Communication shows that the establishment of an EU return acquis over the last decade 
has led to significant legislative and practical changes in all Member States. The Return 
Directive has positively influenced national law and practice regarding voluntary departure 
and has been a driver for change in forced return monitoring. It contributed to a convergence 
— and overall to a reduction — of maximum detention periods across the EU and there has 
also been consistent movement towards a wider implementation of alternatives to detention 
across Member States. It also limited Member States’ ability to criminalise mere  irregular 
stay, and its procedural safeguards have contributed to more legal security.  
 
The concern, expressed by some Member States at the time of its adoption, that its protective 
provisions would undermine the efficiency of return procedures has not materialised: 
Experience confirms that the procedures foreseen in the Return Directive allow for 
determined action. The main reasons for non-return relate to practical problems in the 
identification of returnees and in obtaining the necessary documentation from non-EU 
authorities.     
 
Joint ownership of and support for the key policy objectives of this new EU policy have 
gradually developed. All Member States now generally accept the following policy 
objectives:  
•  respect for fundamental rights;  
•  fair and efficient procedures;  
•  reduction of cases in which migrants are left without clear legal status;  
•  primacy of voluntary departure;  
•  promotion of reintegration and fostering of alternatives to detention 
 
This has become apparent during recent policy dialogues with Member States, conducted in 
2013. These positive changes have also been confirmed by the United Nations International 
Law Commission’s eighth report on the expulsion of aliens, in which the UN Special 
Rapporteur acknowledges that the EU’s Return Directive ‘contains extremely progressive 
provisions on such matters that are far more advanced than the norms found in other regions 
of the world
.’   
 
Despite these positive developments, and the fact that Member States have generally ensured 
that the Return Directive is transposed in their national law, there is still scope for 
improvement in the practical implementation of the Directive and of return policies in 
general, ensuring respect for fundamental rights standards (e.g. detention conditions, effective 
legal remedies) and effectiveness (e.g. faster procedures and higher rates of — voluntary — 
return). 
 
The action set out in this Communication focuses on ensuring proper and effective 
implementation of the existing rules, promotion of fundamental rights-compatible practice, 
cooperation between Member States as well as cooperation with non-EU States. This action 
will ensure better implementation and practical application of return policies, consolidating 
and deepening the achievements of the EUs return policy over the next years, in full respect of 
the inalienable rights and dignity of all people — whatever their migratory status may be. 
 
30