On 15 June 2026, the European Parliament published an amendment package to the proposed EU Return Regulation in which the Greens/EFA group tables a motion to reject the entire Commission proposal. The single amendment, if adopted, would block the legislative process and require the Commission to withdraw or resubmit the text, signalling fundamental opposition to the regulation's approach to returning third-country nationals staying illegally in the Union.
The amendment, filed under reference A-10-2026-0048-AM-002-002, targets the Commission's proposal for a common return system that would replace the current Return Directive (2008/115/EC) and related instruments. No other political group has submitted amendments in this document, leaving their positions unstated at this stage. The Greens/EFA move suggests the group considers the proposal irredeemable through targeted changes, likely on grounds of human rights protections, procedural safeguards, or the balance between enforcement and fundamental rights.
Policy orientations and trade-offs
The Commission's proposal aims to streamline and accelerate returns across Member States, addressing low return rates that have long been a political priority. The Greens/EFA rejection, however, frames the regulation as incompatible with EU legal obligations and fundamental rights. The trade-off is between efficiency in enforcement and the preservation of individual safeguards: a more coercive system could increase return numbers but at the cost of due process and the rights of migrants.
Impact on stakeholders
- EU regulatory bodies: The European Commission would face a political setback if the amendment succeeds, potentially delaying or derailing a flagship legislative file.
- National authorities of EU countries: Member States seeking more effective return tools would lose a harmonised framework, reverting to the current directive with its lower enforcement capacity.
- Migrants and asylum seekers: A rejected proposal would maintain existing procedural protections but also perpetuate the status quo of low return rates and legal uncertainty.
- EU civil society and NGOs: Groups advocating for migrant rights would welcome the rejection as a victory for fundamental rights, though they may still push for further reforms.
Expected institutional follow-up
The amendment will be debated in the responsible committee before a plenary vote. If the motion to reject is adopted, the Commission must either withdraw the proposal or submit a new one. Otherwise, the file proceeds to trilogue negotiations with the Council, which has yet to adopt its position. The absence of amendments from other groups suggests they may support the Commission text or are preparing changes for later stages.