Only 135,000 of the nearly 492,000 people the EU ordered to leave in 2025 actually departed. Interior ministers met in Luxembourg on October 1 to close that gap between orders and departures, agreeing on stricter rules for returning migrants. The Home Affairs Council shifted the bloc’s focus from paperwork to enforcement.
The principle is simple. People without the right to stay must leave and cooperate with authorities. Those who don’t could face sanctions, including reduced benefits, fines or criminal charges.
What the Return Order Does
At the centre of the package sits a new European Return Order. It would let countries choose whether to recognise each other’s return decisions, making the mechanism voluntary rather than compulsory. A review is planned after three years.
The rules go further for people deemed security risks. Countries could impose indefinite entry bans and detain individuals for longer than 24 months. The package also permits return hubs outside the EU. Unaccompanied minors are excluded, and the rules are due to take effect in the coming weeks.
The voluntary design matters. Member states retain the choice of whether to recognise another country’s decision, leaving national governments room to set their own pace. Brussels supplies the framework; capitals decide how far to use it.
The Enforcement Gap
Ministers acted as arrivals fell. At a meeting in Munich on 26 September, Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner said irregular arrivals had dropped by 55% over two years. Fewer people are crossing. But that doesn’t resolve the question of those already in Europe who’ve been told to leave and haven’t.
The 2025 figures show the scale. Of nearly 492,000 return orders, roughly 357,000 went unfulfilled. When a removal system carries out fewer than a third of its own decisions, public confidence in asylum rules generally takes a hit: voters see orders issued, then ignored.
Return Hubs and Their Critics
The return hub is the package’s most contested element. Greece’s migration minister, Thanos Plevris, said the first hub could open in the second half of 2027 in an unspecified African country. No host country has been named, and no site confirmed.
Critics have focused on that vagueness. The UN human rights office warned that the law lacks clear rules for monitoring, appeals or conditions in host countries. These questions are practical as well as legal: who runs the facilities, who pays, and what recourse does a person have after transfer? The text permits hubs without, in the UN office’s reading, answering them.
For governments, those questions also carry a fiscal edge. Detention beyond 24 months in security cases, along with facilities abroad, means costs ministers haven’t put figures on. The base agreement offers no budget line.
Why This Matters:
The Luxembourg deal shows European governments accepting that border policy doesn’t end when an asylum claim is rejected. Credibility depends on carrying out decisions. In 2025, 135,000 departures against 492,000 orders showed a system struggling to deliver on its own rulings, and that gap feeds public distrust in migration policy as a whole. The voluntary recognition mechanism leaves decisions with national governments, consistent with the principle that states, not Brussels, control who stays. Questions remain: the first hub’s host country is undefined, longer detention has no stated cost, and the UN office has warned of missing oversight rules. The three-year review will test whether enforcement can match the ambition. If returns stay low, political pressure on governments will persist, whatever the rulebook says.