On 26 March, the European Parliament’s plenary endorsed a compromise text on the EU’s controversial new deportations bill (draft EU Return Regulation) that sealed a toxic alliance between centre-right and far-right forces.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), said, “This vote marks a dangerous turning point, as centre-right forces break the cordon sanitaire to align with the far right and push through a deeply repressive agenda. This toxic alliance is paving the way for mass detention, family separation, and deportations – normalising abuse we’ve seen with ICE in the United States, and putting countless lives at risk.”

The vote followed the collapse of negotiations with liberals (Renew) and socialists (S&D) in the civil liberties committee (LIBE), as conservatives struck backroom deals with far-right MEPS to jointly vote for a more repressive compromise text, as revealed by German press agency dpa. 

With this vote, publicly elected MEPs are choosing to put hundreds of thousands of people, including children, at risk of irreparable harm. The text allows member states to detain children and adults, tear families apart, and send people to deportation centres in countries they have never set foot in. Five EU countries – Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Greece – are already collaborating on plans to set up such centres, although no information is yet available about destination countries.

The proposals also grant sweeping powers to restrict people’s movements, search belongings, impose disproportionate “security” measures, and share personal data with countries that lack safeguards.

The Parliament’s position adds to an already harmful text, that is set to normalise and escalate ICE-style immigration enforcement across the Union. The Commission’s proposal would require member states to deploy broad and undefined detection measures to catch undocumented people, which could result in invasive surveillance, racial profiling and obligations for public workers to denounce undocumented people. The Council’s position on the draft Return Regulation endorses police raids of public spaces and private homes, with very little safeguards.

The three EU institutions – Commission, Council and Parliament – will now enter trilogue negotiations to hammer out a final text.

On 9th March, Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) voted on the EU’s controversial new deportations bill (draft EU Return Regulation).

The vote followed the collapse of negotiations between Renew (liberals) rapporteur Malik Azmani and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D). In response, the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) tabled an alternative version of the bill, backed by far-right groups including Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN), European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and Patriots for Europe (PfE).

Critics had already warned that Azmani’s compromise text differed little in substance from the harder-line proposal and contained few meaningful safeguards to prevent fundamental rights violations in the law’s implementation.

In this vote, both texts were put to MEPs. The S&D ultimately rejected both versions, as did The Left and the Greens/EFA groups. The EPP’s proposal therefore secured a majority with the backing of far-right groups.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said: “This vote seals a toxic alliance between centre-right and far-right forces, after weeks of backroom deals to kill the last remaining safeguards. It puts hundreds of thousands of people, including children, at risk of detention across Europe and allows member states to tear families apart, sending them to deportation centres in countries they have never set foot in. The proposals grant sweeping powers to restrict people’s movements, search belongings, impose disproportionate “security” measures, and share personal data with countries that lack safeguards. After the outrage over ICE operations in the United States, this text opens the door to similarly violent immigration enforcement across Europe. Human dignity, freedom, equality: this vote betrays the very values the EU claims to uphold.”

The text that was voted:

• Opens the door for member states to set up deportation centres outside the EU – including for families with children – leading to automatic arbitrary detention, accountability and human rights monitoring challenges, risks of chain deportations towards unsafe countries and numerous other violations of human rights and international law;
• Turns forced returns (deportations) into the default option for people found in an irregular situation, despite the higher risk of violence and fundamental rights violations, further restricting people’s agency and options.
• Massively expands the use and duration of immigration detention (from 18 to 24 months, with restrictive measures possible after the 24 months, including electronic monitoring and reporting obligations), including for children – despite a global commitment from governments to eradicate locking up children for immigration reasons;
• Requires member states to impose geographical restrictions or reporting obligations for all people in the return procedure, or any other restrictive measures defined in national law;
• Despite creating the conditions for overcrowded detention centres, it introduces “emergency” possibilities for member states to disregard safeguards during detention such as limiting judicial review of detention decisions, including for families and children, when there are “exceptionally large numbers” of people awaiting their deportation.
• Introduces severe punitive measures, such as entry bans of undefined duration that could be determined at national level (including “permanent” in cases where security risks are invoked), financial penalties, reduction of financial assistance to rebuild a life after their deportation, and even criminal sanctions for people who do not cooperate towards their deportation;
• Introduces specific derogations from fundamental rights for migrants who are considered a risk for national security and public policy, further blurring the lines between criminal law and migration while reinforcing dangerous stereotypes;
• Reinforces the false assumption that all people who are not eligible for asylum should be immediately deported, making it harder for people to access permits on other grounds, including humanitarian, family and work permits. 

On 10th December, the European Parliament and the EU Council reached an agreement on the revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive, the EU’s law setting minimum protection and redress standards for victims of crime.  

The leaked draft shows that EU lawmakers agreed on a text that fails to protect undocumented victims from detention and deportation should they report abuse or violence to police.

Louise Bonneau, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said “Across Europe, undocumented people already face the impossible choice between enduring abuse or risking detention and deportation if they seek help. This agreement reinforces that fear by signaling that some victims are less worthy of protection, undermining equality before the law and the fundamental rights the EU claims to uphold.” 

The Directive requires that victims should not be ‘discouraged’ from reporting and that their rights under the Directive must not be obstructed, yet it leaves it entirely to member states to decide whether to introduce concrete safeguards, such as guarantees that no personal data of undocumented migrant victims would be shared between police and immigration enforcement officials (e.g. “firewalls”). In practice, this means there will be no EU-wide guarantee of safe reporting mechanisms.

The text clarifies that member states can issue special residence permits for undocumented victims, but they are not required to do so. Only access to secure and autonomous residence status can ensure that victims can report crimes and seek redress without fear.  

Suzanne Hoff, International Coordinator of La Strada International, said “For trafficked and exploited people, one of the biggest barriers is the lack of safe reporting mechanisms, which are generally absent in Europe. We had hoped that the revision of the Victim Rights Directive would remedy this gap in the EU anti-trafficking law, but this did not happen. If the EU is serious about fighting human trafficking and other serve forms of exploitation and abuse it should ensure that reporting abuse does not lead to detention or deportation: without this guarantee, many victims will remain too afraid to come forward”.  

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• The political agreement reached by the European Parliament and the Council will then have to be formally adopted by both institutions, before it is published in the Official Journal and enters into force.
• The European Commission had proposed a minimal safeguard preventing authorities from sharing victims’ residence-status data with migration authorities until completion of the first individual needs assessment. Although far from a full safe-reporting guarantee, it acknowledged the risks faced by undocumented victims. Member states rejected even this limited protection, repeating the missed opportunity seen last year in the Violence Against Women Directive.
• These gaps must also be understood in the broader context of EU migration policy. Proposals such as the “Return Regulation” would further expand enforcement powers that already deter undocumented people – especially women and girls exposed to gender-based violence – from seeking help. Without binding safe-reporting safeguards across EU law, the rights set out in the Directive will remain inaccessible to many of those who need them most.

On 8^th December, the EU Council voted its negotiating position on the draft Return Regulation, the EU’s flagship initiative to escalate immigration detention and deportations of undocumented people, including to countries outside the EU. 

The Council has endorsed a position that further worsens the Commission’s original proposal: 

• A new article which would enable authorities to conduct home raids, investigations and further controls to enforce deportations. Searches would cover both the homes of people to be deported and ‘other relevant premises’, which would potentially open the door to police raiding houses of citizens suspected of sheltering migrants, as well as offices and shelters run by humanitarian organisations. 
• A massive expansion in the use and duration of immigration detention, up to 30 months (up from the current 18 and from 24 in the Commission’s proposal), including for children.  
• Expanded grounds for detention, including absence of family ties, engaging in irregular work and insufficient means of subsistence, de facto criminalising poverty and exclusion. 
• Possibility for member states to establish deportation centres outside the EU, leading to arbitrary detention, serious accountability and human rights monitoring challenges, risks of chain deportations to unsafe countries and numerous other violations of human rights and international law- including for children travelling with their families. 
• Extended derogations from fundamental rights for migrants considered a risk to national security and public policy, further blurring the lines between criminal law and migration and reinforcing dangerous stereotypes. 
• Entry bans of up to 20 years, extendable to an indefinite duration when security risks are invoked, as well as disproportionate obligations on people deemed non cooperative in the return procedure – non-compliance would result in fines, cuts to financial assistance intended to rebuild a life after deportation and even criminal sanctions. 
• Additional ‘flexibility’ clauses opening the door to further measures of punishment and containment at national level, including expanding the grounds for absconding and detention, extra obligations to cooperate and sanctions for non-cooperation. 

The regulation would enter into force two years after adoption, despite having been presented as “urgent”. However, provisions designed to shift responsibility and externalise deportations –such as return hubs – would be applicable immediately. 

QUOTE PACK:

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “This so-called ‘Return Regulation’ ushers in a deportation regime that entrenches punishment, violence, and discrimination. Instead of investing in safety, protection, and inclusion, the EU is choosing policies that will push more people into danger and legal limbo. The Council’s position goes against basic humanity and EU values. Now it is up to the European Parliament to reject this approach. Migration governance must be rooted in dignity and rights – not fear, racism, or exclusion.” 

Sarah Chander, Director at the Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice, said: “European governments are seeking to change the law to deport people to places they are not from, and have no connection to. With the ‘Returns Regulation’, the EU is legitimising offshore prisons, racial profiling and child detention in ways we have never seen. Instead of finding ways to ensure safety and protection for everybody, the EU is pushing a punishment regime for migrants, which will help no-one.”  

Olivia Sundberg Diez, EU Advocate on Migration and Asylum at Amnesty International, said: “Today, EU home affairs ministers are expected to significantly worsen the Commission’s already punitive and deeply flawed Return Regulation proposal. Detention as a default, home raids, new sanctions and surveillance on undocumented people, and deportations at any cost – systematically dismantling rights protections and allowing for indefinite detention in some cases. Mirroring the dehumanizing and unlawful mass arrests and deportations in the US, these hardline policies from EU member states reveal a complete disregard for international law and human dignity.” 

Freek Spinnewijn, FEANTSA director said: “The new proposal not only further criminalises migrants but also threatens those who provide aid or essential services. EU policy must uphold a strict firewall between immigration enforcement and humanitarian support, and Member States must respect the human-rights-based principles, neutrality and independence of humanitarian actors. Homelessness services must be safe spaces, protected from raids or any form of immigration control targeting undocumented people.” 

Sofie Croonenberg, advocacy officer at Stichting Vluchteling, said: “This proposal further legitimizes the extremely harmful externalization policies of the European Union. Learning from similar practices of the past the so-called ‘return hubs’, we know these will lead to extensive human rights violations and even the detention of children. We urge the EU to abandon this concept and shift to human centred policies for people on the move. This is only possible when human rights and dignity are at its core.”  

Federico Dessi, Executive Director at Médecins du Monde Belgium said: “The potential damage that this legislation could cause to the health and well-being of undocumented migrants is too great to ignore. Limited safeguards regarding the sharing of health data have been further weakened, detention periods have been extended, even for children, and measures to ‘detect’ third-country nationals now extend to their own homes and to undetermined types of “relevant premises”. This represents a significant setback for the protection of fundamental rights and the right to health in Europe, and undermines the necessary barriers between service provision and law enforcement.” 

Alkistis Agrafioti, Advocacy Officer & Lawyer at the Greek Council for Refugees (GCR), said: “Greece has become one of the EU’s starkest experiments in detaining asylum applicants — marked by prison-like conditions, a lack of effective monitoring mechanisms, and repeated findings of rights violations. The ‘Returns Regulation’ threatens to replicate and entrench this model across Europe. Instead of learning from the profound failures of detention-based approaches, the EU is choosing to scale them up, turning border zones into sites of coercion and trauma for people seeking protection. This is a dangerous step backwards. A humane migration system must be built on dignity, transparency, and the right to seek safety.” 

Judith Sunderland, Acting Europe and Central Asia Deputy Director at Human Rights Watch: EU governments took a terrible proposal from the European Commission and made it immeasurably worse. The draft Return Regulation opens the door for arbitrary and abusive raids on and prolonged detention of migrants, including children, based on racial profiling, who then face being shipped off to detention centers in random countries they never set foot in, all with minimal legal oversight. This dystopian future is about as far as the EU can go from its founding values of equality and respect for human rights. 

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• Last September, over 250 organisations signed a joint statement calling on EU lawmakers to reject the proposed Return Regulation, highlighting human rights risks and opaque decision-making. 
• The European Parliament will adopt its own negotiating position in the next months. Both institutions, the Parliament and the Council, will then need to find a compromise to finalise the text. 

The European Ombudsperson has found the European Commission bypassed key transparency rules (Better Regulation guidelines) when preparing legislation to counter migrant smuggling (Facilitation Directive and Europol Regulation).

The inquiry followed a complaint by European Digital Rights (EDRi) and Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) on behalf of the Protect Not Surveil coalition, whose mission is to challenge digital surveillance in migration contexts.

The Ombudsperson found that the Commission relied on an overly broad and poorly justified claim of “urgency” to skip Better Regulation requirements, including public consultations and evidence gathering, and concluded that these omissions amount to maladministration.

As the coalition representatives highlighted in their complaint, the European Commission failed to conduct a proper impact assessment of the two proposed instruments, despite a clear mandate to do so and despite a recent implementation study– commissioned by the Commission itself – recommending such an impact assessment for the Facilitation Directive. This study was only made public months after the publication of the proposed Directive, following a request for access to information by PICUM.

Most importantly, the Commission’s failure to conduct an impact assessment overlooks flagrant human rights risks linked to the two instruments.

The proposed Facilitation Directive risks further criminalising migrants and those who help them, despite at least 142 people being prosecuted across the EU in 2024 for offering assistance. The Directive is currently being negotiated in the European Parliament, where right-wing and far-right forces are undermining efforts to protect solidarity from being criminalised.

The Europol proposal would significantly expand the agency’s surveillance powers, putting at risk migrants, aid workers and human rights defenders alike. The Ombudsperson’s findings make it unmistakable that neither broad claims of “operational need” nor political promises at the highest levels justify setting aside essential democratic principles in EU policymaking. The decision underscores – and deepens – public distrust in a European policing agency that receives expanded surveillance powers with little accountability or transparency.

The Ombudsman urges the Commission to clearly define “urgency,” record all exemptions from Better Regulation rules with reasons and approvals, and explain them in legislative memoranda. It also recommends that procedures be put in place to ensure urgent proposals still meet EU standards for transparent, evidence-based, and inclusive law-making.

The Commission is required to send its opinion along with any action it has taken in relation to the Ombudsperson’s recommendations by 25 February 2026.

QUOTES

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said “The Ombudsperson’s findings confirm a worrying trend towards opaque policymaking in the migration field, among others. These proposals carry serious human rights risks, yet they were rushed forward with no formal consultations and no clear assessment of their impacts on people and on EU finances. The European Commission must comply with the Ombudsperson’s recommendations without delay”.

Chloé Berthélémy, Senior Policy Advisor at EDRi, said “The Commission’s maladministration in the Europol reform confirms a concerning trend: political leadership overlooks fair, transparent and evidence-based processes while making laws, and people most affected by the laws – in this case, people on the move – end up facing the devastating consequences. The Ombudsperson’s assessment should be the last nail in the coffin for any legitimacy of Europol’s expanded powers.”

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• In addition to the migration file, the Ombudsperson also examined complaints concerning the Commission’s fast-tracking of proposals on corporate sustainability and due diligence and on the Common Agricultural Policy. In both cases, she found similar procedural failings – most notably the absence of impact assessments and inadequate justification for invoking urgency – which together point to a broader, systemic problem in the Commission’s application of its Better Regulation rules.
• More information on the human rights risks of the Facilitation Directive can be found in PICUM’s briefing How the new EU Facilitation Directive furthers the criminalisation of migrants and human rights defenders.
• Media requests can be addressed to PICUM’s Senior Communications Officer on gianluca.cesaro@picum.org

In March 2025, the European Commission proposed a Returns Regulation expanding immigration detention, deportation, externalisation, racial profiling, and surveillance of undocumented migrants. In a new report, Médecins du Monde International Network and PICUM warn that the proposal threatens the right to health and violates medical ethics, urging EU lawmakers to reject it and promote rights-based migration policies that protect people rather than punish them.

The European Commission’s proposal facilitates the collection, access and exchange of data on third country nationals’ vulnerability, health and medical needs, among other information, between EU member states (article 38), and between EU and non-EU countries to enforce deportation operations (articles 39 and 41).

Decisions on transferring personal data, including sensitive health data, of third-country nationals are left to national authorities and, where relevant, Frontex. No mention is made of independent medical professionals, data protection authorities, or judicial oversight in assessing the risks or justifying the data transfer. When data is shared outside the EU, people risk having their personal data being misused in countries where human rights protections are weak.

This proposal is in direct contrast with Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which guarantee the right to privacy and the protection of personal data for everyone in the EU, including undocumented people.

In multiple judgments, since at least 2000, the European Court of Human Rights has held that collecting or storing health data by public authorities, even if not used, interferes with the right to privacy (Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights) and breaches medical confidentiality.

Medical professionals and civil society organisations have also contested EU and national migration enforcement and deportation policies that jeopardise the right to health and compromise medical professional integrity.

In 2024, the Standing Committee of European Doctors, which represents national medical associations across Europe, denounced how doctors have faced governmental pressure to break patient-doctor confidentiality and report names of patients seeking their care to identify undocumented migrants.

In Italy, campaigners are asking doctors to stop declaring anyone fit for immigration detention. In Belgium, Médecins du Monde and other NGOs appealed to the Constitutional Court against a law that allows physical coercion for mandatory medical examinations in return procedures during WHO-declared public health emergencies. In Sweden, over 4,000 health care workers pledged to commit civil disobedience and refuse to report their patients should the government introduce reporting obligations in the healthcare sector.

Besides concerns linked to the sharing of health data, the draft Regulation jeopardises people’s health and wellbeing in the following ways. The proposal:

• The proposal calls for an escalation of immigration detention across the EU, including for children (despite international standards indicating that immigration detention of children is never in their best interests), expanding the grounds for detention and extending its maximum length from 18 to 24 months. Research shows that any period in immigration detention harms people mental and physical state and various international bodies and courts have emphasised the disproportionate effects of immigration detention on physical and mental health .
• only requires the provision of “emergency health care” and “essential treatment of illnesses” (article 34) in immigration detention centres, and otherwise largely ignores detention standards beyond a general obligation to provide access to “open air space” (article 34).
• expands the grounds for forced deportation, including with coercive measures (article 12(4)), with little consideration of medical needs during the deportation procedures, and to countries where people may face torture or other forms of violence. The text also allows for the creation of deportation centres outside the EU, with unclear oversight over conditions and human rights standards.
• explicitly pushes for detection of people based on their residence status (Article 6) thereby promoting harassment, violence, and racial profiling.

PICUM and Médecins du Monde call on EU lawmakers to reject this text and instead uphold the universal right to health and respect medical ethics; promote safe and regular migration pathways; and ensure access to secure residence permits.

The European Parliament’s civil liberties committee should start discussing its negotiating position in November. The EU Council is expected to vote on its negotiating position by the end of 2025.

QUOTES:

Louise Bonneau, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “Punitive migration measures have already cost lives. History shows where persecution leads, and this Deportation Regulation risks repeating those mistakes: it isolates people, blocks access to healthcare and undermines public health. EU lawmakers must stop it.”

Federico Dessi, Executive Director at Médécins du Monde Belgium, said: “Turning healthcare into a migration control tool is a profound violation of medical ethics and undermines patient safety. Doctors and health workers are bound by a duty of care and confidentiality, yet the use of sensitive health data for deportation and compulsory medical examinations directly undermines this duty. If patients fear that seeking treatment will expose them to deportation, they will delay or avoid care altogether, with devastating consequences for individual and public health. At the same time, expanding immigrant detention, despite the well-documented damage to mental and physical health, puts people at even greater risk.  We urge EU lawmakers to reject measures that compromise medical integrity and the right to health for all.”

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• An embargoed copy of the report can be found here.
• The number of people living in Europe irregularly is uncertain and estimates vary. Recent research suggests that between 2.6 and 3.2 million undocumented migrants resided in 12 European countries (including the UK) between 2016 and 2023. These estimates place migrants in an irregular situation at less than 1% of the total population and between 8% and 10% of those are born outside the Schengen Area (for EU countries) or the Common Travel Area (for Ireland and the UK).
• This report follows a recent statement by over 240 organisations calling on EU lawmakers and member states to reject the draft Return Regulation.

The European Ombudsman will investigate the European Commission’s failure to properly assess the impact of proposed new laws against migrant smuggling, following a complaint brought by NGOs European Digital Rights (EDRI) and the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) on behalf of the Protect Not Surveil coalition, whose mission is to challenge digital surveillance in migration contexts. The Ombudsman’s decision can be found here.

The new rules, proposed in November 2023 and currently being negotiated by the European Parliament and the Council, comprise a Directive on preventing and countering the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and stay in the EU (Facilitation Directive) and a Regulation to reinforce Europol’s role in the fight against migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings (Europol Regulation). The new Facilitation Directive would replace current rules on migrant smuggling (the 2002 Facilitators’ Package).

As the coalition representatives highlight in their complaint to the European Ombudsman, the European Commission failed to conduct a proper impact assessment of the two instruments, despite a clear mandate to do so and despite a report – commissioned by the Commission itself – recommending such an impact assessment (see notes to the editors). This report was only made public months after the publication of the proposed Directive, following a request for access to information by PICUM.

Most importantly, the Commission’s failure to conduct an impact assessment overlooks flagrant  human rights violations linked to the two instruments.

The proposed Facilitation Directive introduces new offences with harsher penalties leading to more criminalisation of migrants and people who help them, without clearly protecting humanitarian acts from prosecution. A recent report by PICUM found that at least 117 people were criminalised in the EU in 2023 for helping migrants.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said, “The proposed revision of the Facilitation Directive will put people at risk of criminal prosecution simply for crossing borders or for helping others in need. The EU Ombudsman’s decision to open an inquiry against the Commission is an important recognition that this proposal risks violating fundamental rights and that the Commission didn’t take these risks seriously”.

The Europol Regulation massivelyexpands the agency’s surveillance capacities, budget and staff, aiming to bring data exchange among police forces to the next level without any consideration for fundamental rights impacts. This is the second reform in a row the Commission has proposed without providing solid evidence. It has also failed to carry out an evaluation of the agency’s original mandate from 2016, as required by the law.

“Europol is an opaque and unaccountable agency that, despite receiving constant wrist slaps from its regulator, continues its power grab. The European Commission’s decision to expand Europol’s powers is simply ignoring this reality and will cause disastrous impacts – especially for people on the move who will bear the brunt of inevitable privacy breaches and discriminatory surveillance.” said Chloé Berthélémy, Senior Policy Advisor at EDRi.

Overall, the current proposals seem to have been motivated by political considerations. Neither of the legislative proposals was part of the Commission’s 2023 work programme. The alleged urgency and importance of this legislative initiative need to be seen in the context of the 2024 European Parliament elections and immigration control as a leading election topic in recent years.

The results of the European Ombudsman’s inquiry are expected later this year.

Sarah Chander, Director at Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice, said, “An investigation into the Facilitators Package will reveal the European Commission’s complete disregard for the human rights of migrants. Both proposals mark yet another step toward codifying a violent, punishment based approach to migration that requires the militarisation of borders and the unjustified use of the criminal justice system toward people in dire need.”

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• The Protect Not Surveil coalition is a group of activists, organisations, researchers and more working to challenge the use of digital technologies at different levels of EU policies and advocate for the ability of people to move and to seek safety and opportunity without risking harm, surveillance or discrimination. Our advocacy aims at holding accountable the EU, Member States and private companies profiting from human rights violations at and within the EU borders.
• Requirements to assess impact: The European Commission is required to conduct an impact assessment prior to the proposal of new legislation likely to have significant economic, environmental or social impacts, as per the Commission’s own Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox (p. 30). In case C 482/17, the Court of Justice of the European Union established that “the preparation of impact assessments is a step in the legislative process that, as a rule, must take place if a legislative initiative is liable to have such implications” (para. 84).
• The Commission’s failure to conduct an impact assessment also disregards recommendations to do so included in a 2023 independent study by consultancy Milieu (p. 85) on the implementation of the 2002 Facilitators’ Package (to be replaced by the new proposed rules). To date, the Commission has not granted access to the national case studies at the basis of the 2023 Milieu study on grounds of “protection of public security” and “protection of the ongoing decision-making process”, without providing sufficient justifications.
• Past communications with the Commission: In a letter to EDRI sent on 3 September 2024 in response to questions around the lack of an impact assessment, the Commission failed to justify the decision not to carry out an impact assessment, in particular on fundamental rights, and instead produced an analytical document based on selective evidence. The Commission cited the urgency of presenting the proposals as justification for omitting an impact assessment but provided no evidence to support this claim, especially given that discussions on revising the 2002 Facilitators’ Package have been ongoing for nearly a decade. Most of the evidence presented in support of the proposal (but published six months after the proposal was published) dates back from 2017.
• The European Parliament decided to carry out its own impact assessment (non-public document) on the new proposed rules given the lack of such a commitment from the European Commission. This was confirmed by a Greens’ political advisor in a PICUM webinar.
• The Kinsa case: The proposed Facilitation Directive was presented four months after the Tribunale di Bologna (Italy) asked the EU Court of Justice (on 21 July 2023 in case C-460/23, known as ‘Kinsa’) whether the non-binding “humanitarian exemption” in the 2002 Facilitators Package is compatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Since the humanitarian exemption is also non-binding in the new proposed Directive, there would be a risk that parts of the new Directive would have to be amended again to avoid being found incompatible with the Charter. The European Commission has not clarified whether it was aware of the court proceedings, and why it considered it necessary to introduce a legislative proposal without waiting for the Court’s interpretative guidance. The Court issued its judgment on 3 June 2025. While its analysis focused on the specific circumstances of the case, the ruling strengthens the argument for making humanitarian exemptions binding under EU law, particularly in cases involving family members, children, and people seeking international protection.
• Risks linked to the Facilitation Directive: Among others, the draft Directive:
  • Criminalises the facilitation of irregular entry, transit or stay, in very broad terms which could include humanitarian actors, lawyers, volunteers, migrants themselves and their family members;
  • Criminalises people for “facilitating irregular entry, transit or stay” when there is a risk of causing serious harm, even when the accused person hasn’t received, requested or accepted any financial or material benefit;
  • Criminalises people providing services traditionally offered in exchange for money (like landlords and taxi drivers) even when there is no element of exploitation or undue financial benefit;
  • Criminalises the vaguely defined “public instigation” of irregular entry, transit of stay, which puts organisations and people providing information at risk of prosecution;
  • Ups prison sentences and sanctions, including risks of severe fines and exclusion from public funding for NGOs;
  • Fails to protect humanitarian acts from prosecution in a clear and binding article.

More information on the human rights risks of the Facilitation Directive can be found in PICUM’s briefing How the new EU Facilitation Directive furthers the criminalisation of migrants and human rights defenders.

Between January and December 2024, at least 142 people faced judicial proceedings in the EU for helping migrants. The majority were charged with facilitation of entry, stay or transit or migrant smuggling (depending on how the crime is defined in the national legislation). The figures stem from media monitoring and research conducted by the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) throughout 2024.

This is most likely an undercount, as statistical and official data concerning those who are being accused, charged, or convicted for smuggling and related offences is often lacking. Many cases go unreported by the media or because people fear retaliation, especially migrants themselves. In addition, some cases reported by the media might not have been detected by our alert system.

Nonetheless, this data confirms a concerning, ongoing trend observed in previous reports. At least 117 people were criminalised in the EU in 2023. At least 102 in 2022, and at least 89 between January 2021 and March 2022.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at PICUM and author of the study, said: “This is the fourth year in a row that we document increasing levels of criminalisation of both migrants and people who help them. And what we’re able to monitor is just the tip of the iceberg.”

Our media monitoring found that most people criminalised were in Greece (62), Italy (29), Poland (17) and France (17). Other cases were found in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, and Latvia.

Among those criminalised, 88 people were criminalised for rescuing or helping migrants in distress at sea. 21 were criminalised for providing food, water or clothing to migrants; 17 for protests and manifestations. For instance, in Poland, five people providing humanitarian aid at the Poland-Belarus border are facing potential sentences of up to five years in prison.

The average length of the proceedings recorded by our media monitoring is three years, but in several cases the actual length can be much longer. In one case that resulted in an acquittal in 2024, a woman faced nearly ten years of legal proceedings after being criminalised in 2014 for purchasing train tickets for a group of Syrian refugees in Sicily, Italy.

In 2024, court proceedings concluded for 43 of the 142 individuals criminalised. Among them, the vast majority of people (41) were acquitted or had their charges dropped. Even if a case may end in an acquittal, trials still have heavy consequences on people’s finances, personal life, and psychological wellbeing.

People criminalised for crossing borders irregularly

Not only solidarity with migrants is being criminalised under counter-smuggling legislation, but also the very act of migrating. According to our monitoring, between January 2024 and December 2024, at least 91 people in Italy, Greece and Spain were criminalised for the sole act of crossing borders irregularly.

People who are criminalised for migrating irregularly are punished twice: they face harsh legal proceedings and, in two thirds of cases, are imprisoned even before their trial begins. In Italy, Maysoon Majidi, a Kurdish-Iranian activist and filmmaker, spent 300 days in pre-trial detention on trafficking charges because she had distributed water to passengers on a boat.

This contrasts sharply with criminalisation of solidarity cases involving EU nationals, where pre-trial detention is rarely applied.

Silvia Carta said: “The criminalisation of solidarity with migrants is deeply tied with the criminalisation of migration itself. These are not two separate issues but are in fact a continuum of restrictive migration policies that make border crossing unsafe and create a hostile environment against those who are considered to have entered in an irregular manner.”

Most people facing criminal charges due to crossing borders irregularly (84%) are accused of steering a boat or driving a vehicle across a border, or of allegedly assisting in managing passengers on board. Often, the person was simply a passenger, or distributed food and water, used a phone and a map while at sea, or even helped others in difficult situations, for instance when a boat was about to capsize.

In Greece, an Egyptian fisherman and his 15-year-old child were charged with smuggling, simply because the father reluctantly agreed to pilot their boat to afford the journey. The father was placed in pre-trial detention and sentenced to 280 years in prison. Not only was the child separated from his father, but he now also faces the same charges in a juvenile court.

In both Italy and Greece, shipwreck survivors were prosecuted as smugglers.

The new EU Facilitation Directive

Criminalisation trends are likely to worsen due to a proposal to revise the current EU legislation on migrant smuggling (EU Facilitation Directive). The proposal from the European Commission, currently under negotiation in the European Parliament, leaves the door open to the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance and could expand the grounds for criminalising migrants.

Silvia Carta said, “The proposed Facilitation Directive risks leading to more people being arrested or brought to trial for helping people in need, and to migrants themselves being accused of smuggling. As the negotiations advance, the European Parliament must push for the strongest safeguards so that no one faces prosecution simply because they crossed a border or helped people in need”.

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• The report is available here. It includes the full list of monitored cases, detail on the most significant cases and more information on counter-smuggling legislation.
• In addition to criminalisation cases against individual human right defenders, activists and people crossing borders, the report also includes additional cases of administrative sanctions and non-judicial harassment of NGOs.
• The draft EU Facilitation Directive is a set of measures announced by the European Commission in November 2023, which aim at countering migrant smuggling. The measures focus on criminalising and punishing so-called smugglers (often, migrants themselves) without tackling the root causes of smuggling (i.e. the lack of safe regular routes for people to come to Europe). The new proposal, largely validated by the EU Council in December 2024, fails to introduce a clear and binding exception from criminalisation for humanitarian assistance by NGOs, family members or migrants themselves. Our position on the proposal can be found here.

On 8th April, MEPs of the civil liberties committee LIBE are set to start debating the European Commission’s proposed rules to tackle migrant smuggling (proposed EU Directive on the facilitation of irregular entry, stay or transit).

The MEPs will discuss the draft report led by socialist MEP Birgit Sippel, which will form the basis of the Parliament’s negotiating position when entering final negotiations with the Commission and Council.

The draft report includes a legally binding provision that would exempt humanitarian assistance from criminalisation. This element is particularly welcome as both the Commission’s proposal and the Council’s negotiating position confined this exemption to a non-legally binding provision, de facto leaving the door open to the criminalisation of solidarity with migrants.

PICUM has been documenting a steady rise of criminalisation of solidarity with migrants in the past few years: at least 117 people were criminalised for helping migrants in 2023; at least 102 people in 2022, and at least 89 people between January 2021 and March 2022.

The LIBE draft report also removes problematic provisions included in the Commission’s proposal, including:

• references to the “likelihood of causing serious harm” as a constitutive element of the facilitation crime, even when the accused person hasn’t received any financial or material benefit. This means that parents who have to undertake perilous journeys with their children would be at risk of prosecution, just as survivors of a shipwreck, if they had accepted to steer the boat out of necessity.  
• a new offence of “publicly instigating” irregular entry, transit, or stay, which was sharply criticised by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, amongst others, for the serious risk that this provision would be used against civil society organisations and have a chilling effect on the much-needed provision of information and services to migrants.

Despite these welcome elements, the current LIBE draft report :

• while clearly exempting ‘humanitarian assistance’ from criminalisation, still de facto leaves the exact definition of what can be considered a humanitarian act to member states. The current text only provides a non-binding definition, which encompasses various acts like assistance to family members and people in distress, or the provision of legal and medical assistance. As a result, member states would still be able to criminalise migrants, people acting in solidarity and service providers;
• fails to clearly protect people from criminalisation if they obtained a licit financial benefit when helping someone in an irregular situation. This means that landlords, taxi drivers and other people providing services traditionally offered in exchange of money would still risk being criminalised, similar to migrants who accept to steer a boat to obtain a reduction on their passage;
• does not clearly protect migrants accused of smuggling themselves, often because they simply were on a boat, distributed food and water, or even helped others on a boat at risk of capsizing;
• does not rule out the criminalisation of irregular stay.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said, “This text is a first positive step forward in the protection of solidarity actions, but more could be done to prevent the criminalisation of migrants themselves. We stand ready to work with the European Parliament so that no one faces prosecution simply because they crossed a border or helped people in need”.

The European Parliament’s plenary is expected to vote on its negotiating position in summer 2025.

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• The new proposed Facilitation Directive is a redraft of proposed changes to the law criminalising the facilitation of irregular migration (2002 Facilitation Directive), which has also been used to criminalise migrants and people acting in solidarity with them.
• Our position on the new proposed Facilitation Directive can be found here. This briefing includes a table comparing provisions of the 2002 Facilitation Directive with those included in the new draft Facilitation Directive.
• A recent study by the research service of the European Parliament about already found that the Commission’s proposal risks leading to increased criminalisation of migrants and those who help them. More information in our press release.
• Media inquiries can be sent to Gianluca Cesaro on gianluca.cesaro@picum.org

On 11^th March, the European Commission published a new draft law to step up and speed up deportations of undocumented people across Europe. 

This proposal has been rushed through under political pressure, with no meaningful consultation of civil society or impact assessments. This approach is guided by the imperative of increasing deportation rates, mostly by derogating from fundamental rights guarantees. 

This proposal: 

• Opens the door for member states to set up deportation centres outside the EU, leading to automatic arbitrary detention, accountability and human rights monitoring challenges, risks of chain deportations towards unsafe countries and numerous other violations of human rights and international law; 
• Turns forced returns (deportations) into the default option for people found in an irregular situation, despite the Commission’s longstanding position that more humane solutions such as voluntary departure should be the preferred option; 
• Massively expands the use and duration of immigration detention (from 18 to 24 months, with restrictive measures possible after the 24 months, including electronic monitoring and reporting obligations), including for children – despite a global commitment from governments to eradicate locking up children for immigration reasons; 
• Despite creating the conditions for overcrowded detention centres, it introduces “emergency” possibilities for member states to disregard safeguards during detention and to limit access to judicial review of detention decisions, including for families and children, when there are many people awaiting their deportation;
• Requires member states to impose geographical restrictions or reporting obligations for all people in the return procedure; 
• Introduces severe punitive measures, such as entry bans of up to 10 years (up from 5 years), extendable for 5 more years or 10 years in cases where security risks are invoked, financial penalties and reduction of financial assistance to rebuild a life after their deportation, for people who do not cooperate towards their deportation; 
• Introduces specific derogations from fundamental rights for migrants who are considered a risk for national security and public policy, further blurring the lines between criminal law and migration while reinforcing dangerous stereotypes; 
• Reinforces the false assumption that all people who are not eligible for asylum should be immediately deported, making it harder for people to access permits on other grounds, including humanitarian, family and work permits. 

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said, “This new proposal is a lucid attempt to escalate the EU’s obsession with deportations, by applying a discriminatory and punitive approach to any person in an irregular situation. There is no consideration of measures that could truly foster social inclusion and regularisation. Instead, we can likely expect more people being locked up in immigration detention centres across Europe, families separated, and people sent to countries they don’t even know.” 

On 27th February, the research service of the European Parliament published a new study about the European Commission’s proposed rules to tackle migrant ‘smuggling’, which finds that they risk leading to increased criminalisation of migrants and those who help them.

The study focuses on the draft “Facilitation Directive”, which aims to criminalise the facilitation of irregular entry, stay or transit in the EU.

It is remarkable to note that the European Parliament conducted this study as a response to the Commission’s failure to assess human rights risks before proposing the new rules. At the time of this writing, the European Commission has failed to conduct a proper impact assessment of the proposed Facilitation Directive. The authors of the study recommend that the Commission withdraw the proposal until a proper impact assessment is carried out.

The study finds that the proposed Directive exacerbates the conflation of criminal law and migration control. The authors ask to refocus the proposal on combating organised criminal networks as required by international law – instead of expanding the definition of the crime of “smuggling” to activities not linked to organised crime, which would lead to the criminalisation of migrants and people who help them. The study reflects civil society’s concerns about the lack of a clear, binding clause that would exempt service provision and solidarity from criminalisation.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said, “This study reflects what many human rights actors have been denouncing all along: the proposed Facilitation Directive risks leading to more people being arrested, fined or brought to trial for helping people in need, and to migrants themselves being accused of smuggling”.

The study came out after the EU Council voted its negotiating position on the draft Directive last December, also failing to exempt solidarity from criminalisation in a binding article. The European Parliament is expected to vote on its own negotiating position in June 2025.

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• The new proposed Facilitation Directive is a redraft of proposed changes to the law criminalising the facilitation of irregular migration (2002 Facilitation Directive), which has also been used to criminalise migrants and people acting in solidarity with them.
• Our position on the new proposed Facilitation Directive can be found here. This briefing includes a table comparing provisions of the 2002 Facilitation Directive with those included in the new draft Facilitation Directive.
• Media inquiries can be sent to Gianluca Cesaro on gianluca.cesaro@picum.org

On 13th December 2024, the EU Council will vote on new EU rules about migrant smuggling which would leave the door open to the criminalisation of migrants and solidarity with migrants. The vote marks the Council’s position on the new draft Facilitation Directive, a European Commission proposal to counter migrant smuggling by expanding the crime definition and upping prison sentences.

The text set to be voted by the Council also fails to introduce a legally binding provision that would exempt acts of solidarity with people in an irregular situation from criminalisation. Instead, the Council will vote to simply invite member states not to criminalise humanitarian acts in a non-binding recital. Without a legal requirement that prohibits the criminalisation of migration and solidarity, there is genuine concern that member states will increase legal procedures against migrants themselves and people helping migrants.

PICUM has been documenting a steady rise of criminalisation of solidarity with migrants in the past few years: at least 117 people were criminalised for helping migrants in 2023; at least 102 people in 2022, and at least 89 people between January 2021 and March 2022.

The text to be voted by the Council underlines that the Facilitation Directive only provides for minimum rules, hinting at the possibility for member states to increase the level of criminalisation under their national legislation if they wish so.

Marta Gionco, Senior Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “European governments have been increasingly cracking down on migrants and on people who help them. This vote goes in the direction of more criminalisation, with more people expected to face trials, fines and prison sentences simply for helping other people.”

The trend towards more criminalisation would also risk affecting the very victims of smuggling.

International law is clear that migrants who are victims of smuggling should not be criminalised. The current law already fails to provide any protection, and the new text only mentions this in a non-binding recital, effectively leaving the door open to the criminalisation of migrants themselves, and their family members.

The European Parliament is expected to discuss its own position on the draft Facilitation Directive at the start of 2025. The Parliament and the Council will then have to reach an agreement between their respective positions, before a final text is approved.