ASSEDEL spoke with Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Member of the European Parliament from Renew Europe, about the recently approved report on return and readmission, the political negotiations behind it, and the concerns it raises for migrants, asylum seekers and refugees across the European Union.
Oetjen began by outlining the negotiation process that led to the final text. The European Commission had presented its proposal, with Malik Azmani, a liberal MEP from the Netherlands, acting as rapporteur. According to Oetjen, the initial objective was to build a broad centrist majority bringing together liberals, social democrats and Christian democrats.
However, this consensus ultimately failed. He explained that the differences between the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats were too wide, particularly on key aspects of return and readmission policy. Shortly before the end of the negotiations, the Christian Democrats presented alternative compromise amendments, which Oetjen said had been prepared together with far-right groups. These compromises were later approved in committee with the support of Christian Democrats and far-right parties.
Concerns over detention and fundamental rights
A central concern raised during the interview was whether the report could open the door to more aggressive enforcement practices in Europe, similar to the model associated with ICE in the United States. Oetjen warned that the Parliament’s position gives member states broad discretion in how they implement return and readmission rules. In particular, he pointed to the possible expansion of detention and the use of new techniques to identify and remove people who no longer have the right to stay in the EU.
While he did not argue that Europe would necessarily replicate the American model, he expressed concern that some national practices could compromise basic human rights. For Renew Europe, he stressed, these risks were serious enough to oppose the text in its current form.
A divided vote and two reasons for opposition
The report was approved by 41 votes in favour and 32 against, reflecting a deeply divided Parliament. Oetjen explained that his vote against the report was based on two main reasons: process and content.
First, he criticised the negotiation process. In his view, a law of this importance should have been built on a broad majority in the political centre. The Social Democrats, he said, had not rejected the file outright but had requested more time to negotiate. The right side of the Parliament refused to grant that time, preventing a more balanced compromise.
Second, Oetjen raised substantive objections. He acknowledged that the EU needs effective return procedures for people who do not have the right to remain in the Union. However, he strongly opposed provisions allowing cooperation with third countries in ways that could lead to people being transferred against their will, including before their asylum claims have been properly assessed. For him, this undermines a core principle of the European legal system: the right to apply for asylum and to have one’s case examined.
Risks for migrants, refugees and asylum seekers
Looking ahead, Oetjen warned that the impact of the report will depend heavily on how member states choose to implement it. This, he argued, is precisely one of the weaknesses of the text: instead of creating a coherent European approach, it risks increasing fragmentation across the EU.
He referred to ongoing or emerging cooperation arrangements involving third countries, including discussions between Austria and Uzbekistan and the existing Italy-Albania model. In his view, such agreements raise serious concerns about the treatment of asylum seekers and the protection of procedural rights.
Oetjen expressed particular concern that more people could face detention or deportation without having received a proper assessment of their asylum claim. He underlined that the right to have one’s case examined is not the same as an automatic right to asylum, but it remains an essential safeguard in any democratic legal system.
The need for strict monitoring by the Commission
Asked what should be done to ensure respect for human rights, Oetjen pointed to the broader EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, which member states must now implement. He noted that the Pact includes important human rights safeguards, but argued that the return and readmission report represents a step backwards in this area.
Since the report has already been voted on, Oetjen said he does not expect the European Commission to reopen the file or propose major changes to the regulation. Instead, he stressed that the Commission must closely monitor how member states apply the rules in practice.
For Oetjen, the priority now is to ensure that national implementation does not erode fundamental rights. The Commission, he argued, has a responsibility to guarantee that basic human rights remain protected throughout return and readmission procedures.
ASSEDEL, based in Strasbourg and committed to the promotion of human rights and European values, continues to follow and highlight the political and social debates shaping the future of migration, asylum and fundamental rights in Europe.
Regardez l'interview complète sur notre chaîne YouTube ! YouTube channel!