Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission is on a collision course with 17 member-states demanding tougher legislation to eject asylum seekers who have had their claims rejected.
And one Brussels-based policy analyst has warned action is needed now to prevent a crisis.
The European Union’s struggles to improve the deportation rate in such cases has been well-documented.
And now nations led by Austria and the Netherlands are pushing for a migration policy “paradigm shift” to ensure unsuccessful claimants are swiftly and effectively returned to their home countries.
They argue the new approach must include “consequences” for individuals who are issued a return order but subsequently fail to leave Europe.
A non-paper, or unofficial document, seen by Euronews say: “People without the right to stay must be held accountable.
“A new legal basis must clearly define their obligations and duties.
“Non-cooperation must have consequences and be sanctioned.”
Governments “must be empowered” to carry out deportations while fully respecting fundamental rights, signatories add.
Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, and Sweden have also endorsed the plan, along with non-members Norway, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein, all located within the Schengen Area.
All are urging the Commission – led by President Ms von der Leyen – to address the issue “expeditiously” and propose a “state-of-the-art framework” reflecting the current challenges in migration management.
The initiative follow on from discussions from a working party meeting in June exploring various ways to improve the EU’s low deportation rate, which continues to hover stubbornly around 30 percent.
Several ideas were floated at the meeting, including the use of trade and visa policies as “leverage” to encourage countries of origin to take back their nationals after their asylum claims are rejected.
An apparent lack of cooperation from certain countries has often been pinpointed as a key factor in the EU’s low return rate.
Another proposal was the introduction of a “common European return decision”, addressing the problem of member states refusing to recognise deportation orders issued by other EU countries.
This joint appeal comes prior to a meeting of interior ministers in Luxembourg on Thursday, and follows Germany’s reintroduction of border controls, Hungary’s threats to use irregular migrants against Belgium, and the Netherland pushing for an opt-out from EU asylum rules.
Migration is also likely to be a important topic at a two-day summit of EU leaders next week, as concerns mount over the stability of the Schengen Area and the effectiveness of the bloc’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum.
While the New Pact includes measures intended to bridge the gap between asylum procedures and deportations, the 17-country group wants fresh laws addressing deportations.
The reform of the 2008 Return Directive has been stalled in the European Parliament since 2019, and the group says a fresh legislative text is needed.
European Commission President Ms von der Leyen, in her second-term guidelines, has vowed to introduce a “new common approach on returns” with a streamlined legal framework aimed at streamlining the deportation process, ensuring dignified returns, digitising case management, and facilitating “mutual recognition” of return decisions across Europe.
Pieter Cleppe, editor of BrusselsReport.uk, told Express.co.uk: “For now, border checks in Germany, and soon France, are not creating traffic jams, but this may escalate if the illegal migration crisis is not controlled.
“Schengen can only be saved by implementing the Australian approach to the EU’s external border. Interesting that EU countries now target the ECJ as one culprit for complicating returning illegal migrants back home
“Incredibly, only this week, the European Court of Justice effectively ruled that all Afghan women do no longer indeed an individual assessment of asylum applications. This makes clear how the current asylum laws, which protect far more people than citizens in the West are willing or able to help, does not make sense.”
