(1)

The Union, in constituting an area of freedom, security and justice, should have a common policy on the return of third-country nationals with no right to stay in the Union. An effective return policy is a key component of a credible migration management system.

(2)

This Regulation establishes a common system for the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the Member States (‘illegally staying third-country nationals’) based on a common procedure for return, effective cooperation with third countries, obligations for illegally staying third-country nationals, a set of tools for managing effective returns, including measures to incentivise return, and cooperation between Member States.

(3)

In accordance with Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), this Regulation does not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

(4)

To contribute to the implementation of the comprehensive approach set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), a common system for effectively managing the return of illegally staying third-country nationals should be put in place. That common system should be based on integrated policy making to ensure the coherence and effectiveness of the actions and measures taken by the Union and its Member States, acting within their respective competencies.

(5)

The European Council has consistently underlined the importance for determined action at all levels to facilitate, increase and speed up returns from the Union. In October 2024, the European Council invited the Commission to submit a new legislative proposal, as a matter of urgency.

(6)

The strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 12 December 2024 recalled that a successful return policy is a fundamental pillar of a comprehensive and credible Union asylum and migration system. To that end, the strategic guidelines called for the development and implementation of a more assertive and comprehensive approach to returns, by upgrading the legal framework as a matter of urgency.

(7)

An effective return policy should ensure coherence with and contribute to the integrity of the Pact on Migration and Asylum and should contribute to managing illegal immigration to the Union and preventing unauthorised movements between Member States of illegally staying third-country nationals while respecting fundamental rights.

(8)

The Union and its Member States have been increasing efforts to make return policies more effective. Despite those efforts, the existing legal framework, which consists of Council Directive 2001/40/EC (4) and Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), no longer corresponds to the needs of the Union’s migration policy and the legislative and operational needs to ensure effective returns. Since the adoption of Directive 2008/115/EC in 2008, the area of freedom, security and justice and the Union’s migration policy have evolved considerably. Union law in the area of migration has moved from legislation setting minimum standards to legislation aimed at bringing Member States’ practices closer together. The Commission sought to reform the return rules in 2018 with the proposal to recast Directive 2008/115/EC. The Commission has also sought to support Member States in using the flexibilities provided for in Directive 2008/115/EC through Commission Recommendations (EU) 2017/2338 (6) and (EU) 2023/682 (7). However, the limits of the current legal framework have been reached.

(9)

A firm common procedure for effective return should be set up to ensure that third-country nationals who do not, or no longer, fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States are returned in a humane and sustainable manner and with full respect for fundamental rights as well as international law without undue delay. Clear and transparent rules applicable in all Member States should provide certainty for the third-country national concerned and the competent authorities. It is important to simplify, facilitate and speed up return procedures and ensure that return is not obstructed, including by unauthorised movements to other Member States.

(10)

The application of the rules in this Regulation should not affect the rules on access to international protection in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8). Where relevant, the rules in this Regulation are complemented by the specific rules set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 linking negative asylum decisions and return decisions as regards their issuance and remedies, and by the return border procedure set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1349 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9).

(11)

This Regulation respects the fundamental rights of third-country nationals and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) as well as the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 (the ‘Geneva Convention’). It should be applied in compliance with the Charter, general principles of Union law and relevant international law.

(12)

The principle of non-refoulement and the prohibition on collective expulsion provided for in Article 19 of the Charter should be respected. In accordance with that Article, no one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a third country where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

(13)

The Member State on whose territory the illegally staying third-country national is detected is responsible for ensuring his or her return.

(14)

The court or tribunal designated as competent by the Member State under national law should be responsible for the remedy for challenging a return decision, an entry ban and a decision ordering removal. Compliance with the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement should be verified where material in the file brought to the attention of the court or tribunal designated as competent under national law for the remedy against the return decision or the decision ordering removal, as supplemented or clarified following adversarial proceedings, suggests that the principle of non-refoulement might be violated.

(15)

Without prejudice to the right to an effective remedy provided for by Article 47 of the Charter ensuring that the third-country national can challenge the period for departure or the absence thereof in the return decision, the part of the return decision imposing or stating the obligation to leave the territory of the Member States should not be affected by the annulment or revocation of the period for departure.

(16)

In the event of removal, authorities designated as competent under national law should verify compliance with the principle of non-refoulement on the basis of an individual assessment taking into account all relevant circumstances. The third-country national concerned should submit and substantiate as quickly as possible, and prior to his or her removal, information relating to his or her own personal circumstances. It should be possible to rely upon an existing assessment of all relevant circumstances made in previous stages of the procedure or in other previous procedures. Any relevant change in circumstances and any new element evidencing a risk of refoulement should be examined, including to determine whether they are substantiated and not considered to have been brought forward by the third-country national concerned merely in order to delay or frustrate the removal.

(17)

Member States may refer third-country nationals who indicate that the removal would violate the principle of non-refoulement to the appropriate procedure, including the asylum procedure in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. Member States may also refer such third-country nationals to the appropriate procedure when their authorities designated as competent under national law become aware of relevant indications that the removal would violate the principle of non-refoulement.

(18)

It is necessary for Member States to be able to cooperate more flexibly, including through new bilateral agreements or arrangements, and in a more targeted manner, to foster effective returns to third countries.

(19)

Once it is established that a third-country national does not fulfil, or no longer fulfils, the conditions for entry, stay or residence on the territory of the Member States, a return decision should be swiftly issued based on an individual assessment taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances. The return decision should state the obligation for the third-country national to leave the territory of the Member States. The return decision should not be required to determine a country of return. The country of return should at the latest be determined prior to removal, and may be determined in either the return decision or in any other decision ordering removal separate from the return decision. Where there is an obstacle to removal, the issuance of a return decision should not be precluded, but removal should be postponed. Where, at the time of issuance of the decision determining the country of return, it remains possible that the third-country national will be removed to one of several countries of return, including due to dual or multiple citizenship, all such countries of return can be determined in that decision. The right to an effective remedy provided by Article 47 of the Charter is to be ensured in respect of all the countries of return determined in the decision. In any event, where the competent authority proceeds with removal, the third-country national should be informed of the country of return to which he or she will be removed sufficiently in advance of the removal.

(20)

This Regulation should not preclude Member States from providing for other grounds for postponement of removal for specific groups of third-country nationals under national law.

(21)

Third-country nationals with an obligation to leave should have the primary responsibility for departing the territory of the Member States.

(22)

It is necessary to ensure that the essential elements of a return decision issued by a Member State are entered in a specific form as a European Return Order, established pursuant to this Regulation, and made available in the Schengen Information System together with the alert on return. The European Return Order should in turn support the recognition and enforcement of enforceable return decisions and decisions ordering removal issued by another Member State where the third-country national moves unauthorised to another Member State.

(23)

Where a third-country national present on the territory of a Member State is subject to an enforceable return decision issued by another Member State, recognition and enforcement of return decisions should facilitate and accelerate the return process on the basis of enhanced cooperation and mutual trust between Member States. Such recognition and enforcement can also contribute to deterring irregular migration and discouraging unauthorised movements within the Union, as well as limiting delays in the return process. The remedy against the return decision should be exercised only in the issuing Member State.

(24)

The recognition of a return decision or decision ordering removal based on the information available in the European Return Order should not constitute an act or decision. The non-recognition of a return decision or decision ordering removal should also not constitute an act or a decision.

(25)

Where a Member State considers recognising and enforcing an enforceable return decision or a decision ordering removal issued by another Member State (mutual recognition), the following elements could guide the Member State in identifying situations in which mutual recognition should not be applied and in which it should instead issue its’ own return decision. Such situations could include cases where enforcement would be contrary to the enforcing Member State’s public policy, including in relation to the return of certain categories of third-country nationals, such as unaccompanied minors and victims of trafficking in human beings, to which national law provides for a higher level of protection; cases where issuing a new return decision would be faster; cases where the information available in the European Return Order is incomplete; cases where the third-country national has lodged an appeal against the return decision in the issuing Member State; cases where the third-country national is to be removed to a different country of return than determined in the return decision or decision ordering removal of the issuing Member State, or cases where there is no country of return determined in the return decision.

(26)

For the purpose of preparing the steps towards mandatory mutual recognition, the Commission and relevant Union agencies, such as the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA), established by Regulation (EU) 2018/1726 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10), should, where relevant, support Member States, including by identifying the necessary arrangements and adjustments needed for the purpose of ensuring automated handling of the European Return Order.

(27)

Not later than the date of adoption of the implementing act establishing the form of the European Return Order, Member States and the Commission and relevant Union agencies, such as eu-LISA, should start putting in place legal and technical arrangements to ensure that the European Return Order can be made available through the Schengen Information System.

(28)

By 17 October 2029, the Commission should assess the implementation of mutual recognition, in particular as regards: whether the legal and technical arrangements making the European Return Order available through the Schengen Information System pursuant to this Regulation are put in place by the Member States and are effective; whether the legal and technical arrangements to ensure automated handling of the European Return Order pursuant to this Regulation are put in place by the Member States; the effectiveness of the recognition and enforcement of return decisions and decisions ordering removal; the burden on judicial and administrative national systems resulting thereof; and the results of relevant training and pilot project activities.

(29)

Based on the assessment of the implementation of mutual recognition, the Commission should submit, where appropriate, legislative proposals, including any targeted amendments to ensure effective returns, with a view to introducing mandatory mutual recognition and enforcement of enforceable return decisions and decisions ordering removal issued by another Member State. Where the Commission does not submit a proposal, it should explain the reason for not doing so.

(30)

The effects of national return measures should continue to be given a Union dimension by establishing an entry ban prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of all Member States. The duration of an entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case. When an illegally staying third-country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it could be appropriate to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration while not preventing the swift departure of that third-country national.

(31)

Third-country nationals who have not complied with the obligation to leave, or to whom a departure period has not been granted, can be removed by using coercive measures. Reinforced rules on removal should seek to ensure a direct and immediate consequence in the event that the third-country national fails to leave on or before the expiry of the departure period as well as to prevent unauthorised movements within the Union and security risks. Where there are no reasons to believe that voluntary return would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, it should be possible for cooperating third-country nationals to continue to be returned primarily through voluntary return. Coercive measures should be subject to the principles of proportionality and effectiveness with regard to the means used and objectives pursued.

(32)

Since this Regulation solely applies to third-country nationals staying illegally in the Union, it does not affect return and reintegration counselling and other programmes for supporting voluntary returns and reintegration of third-country nationals who are staying legally in the Union.

(33)

Common rules are necessary to ensure that illegally staying third-country nationals posing security risks are efficiently identified and swiftly returned. It is necessary to ensure that relevant checks are carried out to identify and flag third-country nationals posing security risks including by relying on the screening process set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11). For third-country nationals posing security risks, removal should in general be the rule, and it should be possible to derogate from the general rules in order to provide for longer or indefinite entry bans and for longer detention periods, and to derogate from the use of specialised detention facilities, so that those who threaten the security of the Member States are swiftly removed.

(34)

New rules should extend the possibilities for Member States to ensure returns to third countries through additional tools. It should be possible to put in place specific agreements or arrangements with third countries for the purpose of providing Member States with more options for returns subject to the conditions that international human rights standards and, in the event of removal, the principle of non-refoulement are respected by the third country concerned. Deficiencies in relation to specific parts of the territory of the third country or to identifiable categories of persons should not prevent the conclusion of such an agreement or arrangement, provided that sufficient guarantees are in place to ensure full respect for the rights of the third-country nationals who are concerned by such an agreement or arrangement. In particular, the agreement or arrangement should set out the procedures applicable to the return, the conditions for the stay in the country concerned, the respective obligations and responsibilities of the parties to the agreement or arrangement and the consequences in the case of violations of the agreement or arrangement. Where an agreement or an arrangement involves onward return from the third country, that agreement or arrangement should in addition set out the consequences in the event that onward return is not possible, the respective obligations and responsibilities of the parties to the agreement or arrangement, the consequences of a significant change adversely impacting the situation in the third country, and an independent monitoring body or mechanism to assess the implementation of the agreement or arrangement. Such an agreement or arrangement would constitute the implementation of Union law for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter.

(35)

In order to ensure that the legitimate interests linked to the management of the external borders and the internal security of the Member States concerned are sufficiently protected, in circumstances where a Member State negotiates an agreement or arrangement for the purposes of this Regulation with one of the Union’s neighbouring third countries, the Member States that share a common border with that third country should, at an appropriate time before the conclusion of the agreement or arrangement concerned, be informed of those negotiations, in full respect of the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Upon the conclusion of an agreement or arrangement with a third country, Member States should be required to inform the Commission and other Member States of that agreement or arrangement before it is provisionally applied, or before it enters into force, whichever occurs first. In addition, to avoid any non-compliance with Union law and to further enhance transparency with regard to agreements or arrangements between Member States and third countries, Member States could, on a voluntary basis, keep the Commission and other Member States informed of the progress of negotiations with a third country relating to agreements or arrangements authorised under this Regulation, before final agreement has been reached by the parties, including with a view to seeking the Commission’s assessment as to the compatibility with Union law of the envisaged agreement or arrangement under negotiation.

(36)

A well-functioning Schengen area without internal borders relies on the effective and efficient application by the Member States of the relevant acquis. Council Regulation (EU) 2022/922 (12) establishes an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis, including in relation to the effective return of illegally staying third-country nationals and respect for fundamental rights.

(37)

The best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying return procedures, in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter and the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In assessing the individual best interests of the child, Member States should, in particular, take due account of the minor’s well-being and social development in the short, medium and long term, safety and security considerations and the views of the minor in accordance with his or her age and maturity, including his or her background. Unaccompanied minors should be guided by a representative or a person designated to safeguard the best interests of the child through all the steps of the return process.

(38)

Where there are grounds for doubting whether the third-country national is a minor, the competent authority should be able to carry out an age assessment of the person concerned in accordance with Union or national law. It should be possible for the competent authority to rely on age assessments completed under previous procedures. For the purpose of ensuring coherence across migration management in the Union, competent authorities could have regard to the procedure provided for in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.

(39)

To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear obligations of third-country nationals should be established. Third-country nationals should have the obligation to leave the territory of the Member States and to cooperate with the authorities throughout the return procedure. Third-country nationals should remain available to, and contactable by, the competent authorities and should provide any information relevant to preparing and carrying out the return. They should also not obstruct removal either physically or verbally. In order to be deemed to constitute verbal obstruction, the behaviour of the third-country national concerned should be of a nature or character that is of greater intensity than mere objection. It should primarily be the responsibility of third-country nationals to establish their identity and to obtain and provide the travel documents necessary for return. In the event that the obligations to leave and cooperate are not complied with, effective, dissuasive and proportionate consequences should be imposed, and competent authorities should take the relevant steps to ensure return, including through investigative measures, if applicable. Third-country nationals who cannot be removed, including due to the principle of non-refoulement or due to their lack of cooperation with the competent authorities, should not be excluded from the imposition of general obligations, including the obligations to remain, reside and report. The consequences in the case of non-compliance with the obligation to cooperate should include for instance reduced benefits and allowances granted in accordance with national law or seizure of travel documents.

(40)

This Regulation does not affect obligations and measures not related to return or provisions governing social benefits under national law.

(41)

This Regulation should not affect the possibility for Member States to impose, where applicable, criminal sanctions, including imprisonment, in accordance with national criminal law to third-country nationals falling within the scope of this Regulation.

(42)

A set of legal remedies against decisions related to return should be established to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the individuals concerned. The necessary legal aid should be made available, upon request, in cases of appeal or review before a court or tribunal, without prejudice to the possibility to restrict access to legal assistance and representation.

(43)

Legal assistance and representation includes the preparation of an appeal or request for review, including the drafting of the procedural documents required under national law and, where a hearing takes place, participation in that hearing before a court or tribunal, in order to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.

(44)

The notion of court or tribunal is a concept governed by Union law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union. That notion, among other elements, can only mean an authority acting as a third party in relation to the authority which adopted the decision forming the subject-matter of the proceedings. That authority should perform judicial functions and it is not decisive whether that authority is recognised as a court or tribunal under national law. This Regulation should not affect Member States’ competence to organise their national court system and determine the number of instances of appeal. Where national law provides for the possibility to lodge further appeals against a first appeal or a subsequent appeals decision, and such an appeal has been lodged, removal should not be suspended unless the third-country national requests suspension and a court or tribunal decides to grant it, taking into due account the specific circumstances of the individual case. That should be without prejudice to national law providing for a suspensive effect of such remedies.

(45)

To improve the effectiveness of the return procedures, while ensuring respect for the right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter, appeals against return related decisions should be challenged as far as possible before one judicial level. The rules of this Regulation related to appeals and the suspension of the enforcement of decisions should comply with the right to an effective remedy as provided for in Article 47 of the Charter.

(46)

Although this Regulation does not provide for automatic suspensive effect of an appeal, Member States should, fully respecting Article 47 of the Charter, ensure that removal can be suspended by the competent court or tribunal of first instance prior to the enforcement of the return decision or decision ordering removal. A third-country national should be able to submit a request to suspend the enforcement of a return decision or decision ordering removal, unless national law also provides for the possibility of its suspension by the competent court or tribunal ex officio. That should be without prejudice to the possibility of Member States providing for automatic suspensive effect of an appeal under national law. In order to avoid duplication in the assessment of the risk of violating the principle of non-refoulement, reliance should be placed on any material in the file, in particular previous assessments, including, where relevant, those carried out in the context of an asylum procedure.

(47)

Member States should be provided with the necessary tools to ensure swift and effective returns, including measures as consequences of non-compliance and incentives for compliance with the obligations to leave and cooperate, as well as measures to prevent the risk of absconding. Absconding includes actions such as leaving the territory of the Member States without permission from the competent authorities, for reasons that are not beyond the control of the third-country national. Common rules, without restricting the right of Member States to lay down additional measures and criteria in national law, should streamline requirements relating to the obligation to cooperate and the criteria for determining a risk of absconding. Such common rules should also ensure that detention and alternatives to detention are applied in Member States to effectively manage the return process.

(48)

It should be possible to impose detention when proportionate and necessary, following an individual assessment of each case only for the purpose of return, including for preparing the return, readmission or carrying out the removal. The authorities should act with due diligence, and detention should be maintained only for as short a period as possible and should generally not exceed 24 months in a given Member State. In cases where illegally staying third-country nationals abscond to another Member State, previous periods of detention should not be taken into account when calculating the maximum period of detention. Detention periods provided for under other Regulations or Directives not concerning the return procedure should not be included in the calculation of the maximum period of detention. Special needs arising from a vulnerability assessment should be addressed during detention. Where national law provides for the detention of minors, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration. Other less coercive alternative measures to detention should be used when they can be applied effectively to illegally staying third-country nationals.

(49)

Where detention has been maintained for a period of 24 months, Member States should under certain circumstances have the possibility to detain illegally staying third-country nationals for further periods, not exceeding six months in total, where there is a risk of absconding and changes in circumstances indicate a reasonable prospect of removal due to new significant information. The detention should be ordered in compliance with the principles of necessity and proportionality and should be maintained for as short a period as possible.

(50)

Returning third-country nationals posing security risks require specific measures aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of others. It should therefore be possible to detain such third-country nationals for a period longer than 24 months. Any such detention should comply with the principle of proportionality.

(51)

Third-country nationals in detention should be treated in a humane and dignified manner with respect for their fundamental rights and in compliance with international and national law, taking into account the practical guidelines from the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Detention should, as a general rule, take place in specialised detention facilities or dedicated branches of other facilities. It should be possible for prison accommodation to be resorted to when a Member State cannot provide for such facility, keeping, to the extent possible, such third-country nationals separate from ordinary prisoners. It should be possible for third-country nationals posing security risks to be placed under enhanced security arrangements within detention facilities.

(52)

The grounds for detention set out in this Regulation are without prejudice to other grounds for detention, including grounds for detention within the framework of criminal proceedings, which are applicable under national law.

(53)

The obligation of any State to readmit its own nationals represents a fundamental principle of state sovereignty and international cooperation. The duty of States to readmit their own nationals is considered a principle of customary international law and is provided for in Annex 9, Chapter 5, to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and set out in the Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Members of the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States, of the other part (Samoa Agreement). Effective returns are only possible if States comply with the obligation to readmit their own nationals. Therefore, Member States depend on the cooperation of third countries to be able to implement effective returns. Existing instruments, such as Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13) and support provided by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council (14), are used by the Union and Member States to improve cooperation with third countries where necessary.

(54)

The external dimension of return policy is an integral part of the comprehensive approach to migration management. Effective cooperation on return and readmission is a core external component of balanced and comprehensive partnerships with third countries in line with the objectives referred to in Regulation (EU) 2024/1351. The European Council, among others, in its October 2024 Conclusions, called for swift action to ensure effective returns using as leverage all relevant Union policies and tools, including visa policy, trade, development and diplomacy. A ‘whole-of-government’ approach is needed both within Member States and within Union institutions.

(55)

As cooperation of third countries in the area of return and readmission of illegally staying third-country nationals may prove challenging in practice, and without prejudice to the assessment of third countries’ cooperation on readmission provided for in Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009, where one or more Member States encounter difficulties in third country cooperation on readmission, including for confirmation of nationality, obtaining the necessary travel documents from the relevant third country authorities and organising return operations, the Union and the Member States should be able to make use of the relevant and existing tools provided for in Union law, insofar as they are bound by the legislative acts establishing those tools, as part of a coordinated Union approach to improving cooperation in the area of return and readmission.

(56)

A coordinated approach to readmission among Member States is crucial to facilitate the return of third-country nationals. Insufficient follow-up to enforceable return decisions risks hampering the efficiency of the common approach to returns. Enforceable return decisions should be systematically followed by all necessary measures to implement the return, including, where applicable, the submission of readmission requests to third countries’ authorities, in cases where nationality is in doubt or a travel document needs to be obtained.

(57)

Effective return procedures rely on efficient administrative cooperation and information sharing between Member States. The exchange of information, including the sharing of data, on the identity and nationality of the third-country nationals, their travel documents and other relevant information should be based on clear rules, including those set out in Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 of the European Parliament and of the Council (15). Those rules should respect the principles of data protection and the rights of the individual concerned, ensuring that such information is accurate and is only used for the purposes of return, removal, readmission and reintegration, and is protected against unauthorised access, disclosure or use.

(58)

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (16) applies to the processing of personal data for the purposes of this Regulation. Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (17) applies to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions and bodies for the purposes of this Regulation. In view of the important reasons of public interest behind readmission and effective return, the transfer of personal data of third-country nationals subject to a return decision, including data relating to their identity, travel documents, other relevant data as well as, in duly justified cases, data concerning their criminal convictions and health, could be necessary for the purposes of return, removal, readmission and reintegration. Such transfers must be carried out in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and with the rights of data subjects, as well as with the principles of non-refoulement, proportionality and necessity and the Charter.

(59)

Competent authorities responsible for asylum and competent authorities involved in the different phases of the return process should work together and coordinate closely to ensure effective returns.

(60)

A common system for returns should make full use of digital systems supporting managing returns, readmission and reintegration with an emphasis on efficient administrative procedure, cooperation, information sharing and interoperability.

(61)

Cooperation and assistance between Member States should, as a general rule, take place including for the purpose of allowing transit through their territory, logistical or other material or in-kind assistance linked to such transit, the facilitation of transfers to another Member State, whether pursuant to bilateral agreements or arrangements or based on cooperation between Member States, or supporting the departure of third-country nationals to Member States in which they have a right to stay.

(62)

The Union provides financial and operational support, without prejudice to the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, in order to achieve an effective implementation of this Regulation. To the extent that activities should be financed by the Asylum and Migration Fund thematic facility, these may be implemented under the direct, indirect or shared management. Member States should make best use of the available Union financial instruments, programmes and projects in the field of return, in particular under Regulation (EU) 2021/1147 of the European Parliament and of the Council (18), as well as of the operational assistance provided by Frontex in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2019/1896.

(63)

The reporting on the effectiveness of this Regulation and the identification of areas for improvement should be based on the collection and analysis of existing, reliable and comparable statistics regarding the efficiency of return procedures, cooperation of third countries, and reintegration efforts. The standards set out in Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (19), in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and in national law should be considered and, where necessary, reviewed to ensure the relevance of the statistics. Common standards and definitions for the collection and reporting of relevant data should be established to enable the impact of this Regulation to be assessed and to contribute to making informed decisions on future policy developments.

(64)

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to establish the European Return Order. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (20).

(65)

This Regulation puts in place a new common system of return of illegally staying third-country nationals, to be directly implemented by national authorities. That new system brings about important novelties aimed at improving the efficiency of the return procedure, including with regard to the third countries of return and the external dimension of returns. To allow for the prompt application of the measures provided for in this Regulation, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The provisions not referred to in Article 50(2) of this Regulation that will supersede Directive 2008/115/EC and aim at fully replacing the legal framework provided for by that Directive should apply from 17 October 2027 with a view to allowing for all the necessary preparatory and operational steps to be taken and ensuring its smooth, effective and consistent implementation at Union and national levels, as well as to avoiding any overlap between that Directive and this Regulation. Directives 2001/40/EC and 2008/115/EC and Council Decision 2004/191/EC (21) should therefore be repealed from that date.

(66)

Since the objective of this Regulation, namely to improve the efficiency of return of illegally staying third-country nationals, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the action to ensure a common and coherent approach among Member States, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 TEU. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(67)

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Regulation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide, within a period of six months after the Council has decided on this Regulation, whether it will implement it in its national law.

(68)

This Regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Protocol 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the TEU and the TFEU and, subject to the application of Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not bound by it or subject to its application.

(69)

As regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latter’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (22), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point C, of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (23).

(70)

As regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (24), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point C, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (25).

(71)

As regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point C, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (26).

(72)

This Regulation constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise relating to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the 2003 Act of Accession.

(73)

The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and delivered its opinion on 23 May 2025,