Mutual Recognition of Return Decisions: Quick Fix or Structural Challenge?
On 1 June 2026, the European Parliament and Council reached an agreement on the Regulation establishing a new Common European System for Returns (Legislative Proposal 2025/0059(COD)). The reform is intended to address what is widely perceived as one of the most persistent weaknesses of EU migration policy: the limited effectiveness of return policy. Return procedures remain fragmented, unevenly implemented, and difficult to measure. In the period 2020- 2024, only between 16% and 24% of non-EU nationals issued with an order to leave effectively returned to a third country.
Against this background, the agreed reform places strong emphasis on stricter rules, such as an extension of the detention period, strengthened obligation of cooperation for non-EU nationals and search rights for their place of residence. It also seeks to bring about stronger convergence and effectiveness.One of its main innovations is the gradual introduction of mandatory mutual recognition of return decisions, supported by the European Return Order (ERO) to be integrated into the Schengen Information System (SIS).
The agreement foresees a phased implementation of the mechanism via a preparatory two-year period after entry into application of the Regulation, during which mutual recognition remains optional and will be assessed by the Commission with a view to making it mandatory. The intended logic is clear: once a return decision has been issued in one member state, another member state should not restart the procedure, in case of onward irregular movements.
Mutual recognition of return decisions is therefore expected to reduce duplication and limit delays, as well as discourage unauthorised secondary movements. Yet additional flexibility inserted in the legislative text, as well as derogations, reflect remaining concerns about the practical implications of mutual recognition, especially operational constraints and the risk of administrative burden.
This Brief argues that the implementation of mutual recognition will require stronger convergence of return and asylum frameworks between member states, as well as more effective and reliable information-sharing. It also highlights the importance of meaningful incentives for mutual recognition and guidance on obstacles to removal linked protection of vulnerabilities and fundamental rights. While the reform raises a degree of uncertainty about the impact of mutual recognition, it also offers an opportunity to generate new operational evidence and identify bottlenecks. In its future evaluation, the Commission should be able to assess not only preparedness, but also whether the reform is effectively reducing divergences and addressing the obstacles that have limited the use of mutual recognition.
Read the full policy brief here.
Virginie Jacob is a Senior Adviser to the European Migration and Diversity programme at the European Policy Centre.
This publication is part of a collaborative project between Studio Europa Maastricht (SEM) and the European Policy Centre (EPC). The policy brief collection has been jointly developed, reviewed, and endorsed by both partners.
The support SEM and EPC receive for their operations, or specifically for this publication, does not constitute an endorsement of its contents, which reflect the views of the author(s) alone. Neither supporters nor partners can be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.
