Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The European Parliament and the Returns Directive: The End of Radical Contestation; The Start of Consensual Constraints

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The Social, Political and Historical Contours of Deportation

Part of the book series: Immigrants and Minorities, Politics and Policy ((IMPP))

  • 998 Accesses

Abstract

In 2008, the European Parliament (EP) and the Council approved a new directive that sought to regulate and harmonise the standards of deportation. The Returns Directive raised criticisms from various fronts but it also confirmed the EP as a new actor in the field. Thanks to its new co-legislative powers, the EP became an active promoter of EU-wide policies seeking to remove irregular immigrants from the territory. Interestingly, before turning into a co-legislator the EP had led a sustained opposition to the security-biased policies formulated by the Council. Given the substantial shift in the position of the EP, the Returns Directive is a good example to examine the changes in the political dynamics after the introduction of new decision-making rules and their impact on the construction of a new EU framework for deportation practices.

An earlier version of this chapter has been presented at the summer school on ‘Old and New Borders in Europe’, organised by the Centre Marc Bloch Europa (Berlin) and Universität Viadrina (Frankfurt/Oder) and at the ‘International Conference: Deportation and the Development of Citizenship’, organised by the University of Oxford. It has also been published as a Sussex European Institute Working Paper (n° 117). I wish to thank all participants and reviewers for their comments and advice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To this date, the EU has concluded agreements with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Hong Kong, Macao, Montenegro, Moldova, Russia, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and Pakistan. Negotiations with Turkey have finalised and there are ongoing talks with Morocco and Cape Verde (European Commission 2011).

  2. 2.

    In fact, during negotiations (and in view of the expected outcome) some Member States amended their national legislation in order to increase the length of detention. For instance, Italy proposed to up the length of detention from 60 days to 18 months in June 2008 (Senato della Repubblica 2008).

  3. 3.

    Council official, interview, January 2009; Weber, EPP-ED MEP, interview, December 2009.

  4. 4.

    Weber, EPP-ED MEP, interview, December 2009, Lemarchal, S&D political advisor, interview, March 2010.

  5. 5.

    Weber, EPP-ED MEP, interview, December 2009.

  6. 6.

    Speiser, EPP political advisor, interview, January 2009; Weber, EPP-ED MEP, interview, December 2009; Hennis-Plasschaert, ALDE MEP, interview, March 2010.

  7. 7.

    Speiser, EPP-ED political advisor, interview, January 2009.

  8. 8.

    Speiser, EPP-ED political advisor, interview, January 2009; Weber, EPP-ED MEP, interview, December 2009; MEP assistant, interview, March 2010; Sidenius, Greens political advisor and GUE/NGL political advisor, interviews, March 2011; Commission official, interview, April 2011.

  9. 9.

    Speiser, EPP-ED political advisor, interview, January 2009; Hennis-Plasschaert, ALDE MEP and MEP assistant, interviews, March 2010.

  10. 10.

    Sidenius, Greens political advisor, interview, March 2011; Commission official, interview, April 2011.

  11. 11.

    Sidenius, Greens political advisor; GUE/NGL political advisor, interviews, March 2011.

  12. 12.

    Sidenius, Greens political advisor, interview, March 2011.

  13. 13.

    Hennis-Plasschaert, ALDE MEP, interview, March 2010.

  14. 14.

    Alvaro, ALDE MEP, interview, January 2009; Hennis-Plasschaert, ALDE MEP, interview, March 2010.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

References

  • Acosta, D. (2009). The good, the bad and the ugly in EU migration law: Is the European Parliament becoming bad and ugly? (The adoption of directive 2008/15: The Returns Directive). European Journal of Migration and Law, 11(1), 19–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldaccini, A. (2009). The return and removal of irregular migrants under EU law: An analysis of the Returns Directive. European Journal of Migration and Law, 11(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Den Boer, M., & Monar, J. (2002). 11 September and the challenge of global terrorism to the EU as a security actor. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(s1), pp. 11–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouteillet-Paquet, D. (2003). Passing the buck: A critical analysis of the readmission policy implemented by the European Union and its Member States. European Journal of Migration and Law, 5, 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canetta, E. (2007). The EU policy on return of illegally staying third-country nationals. European Journal of Migration and Law, 9(4), 435–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello, R. (2011). Does bicameralism promote stability? Inter-institutional relations and coalition formation in the European Parliament. West European Politics, 34(1), 122–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2001). Council Directive of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2002). Proposal for a Return Action Programme, 14673/02.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2003). Council Directive of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air. 2003/110/EC, Official Journal, L 321/26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2004a). Council Decision of 29 April 2004 on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of two or more Member States, of third-country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders. 2004/573/EC, Official Journal L 261/28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2004b). Council Decision of 22 December 2004 providing for certain areas covered by Title IV of Part Three of the Treaty establishing the European Community to be governed by the procedure laid down in Article 251 of that Treaty.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2009). The Stockholm Programme—An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens, 17024/09. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from http://www.se2009.eu/polopoly_fs/1.26419!menu/standard/file/Klar_Stockholmsprogram.pdf

  • Elsen, C. (2010). Personal reflections on the institutional framework of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. In J. Monar (Ed.), The institutional dimension of the European Union’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (pp. 255–265). Brussels: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2002). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a community return policy on illegal residents, COM/2002/0564 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2005). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, COM/2005/391 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011). EU readmission agreements: State of play. Retrieved April 12, 2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/immigration/docs/EUreadmissionagreements.pdf

  • European Parliament (2008). Debates—Tuesday, 17 June 2008—Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, CRE 17/06/2008-4. Available from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20080617+ITEM-004+DOC+XML+V0//EN

  • European Parliament (2009). Codecision and conciliation: A guide to how the parliament co-legislates under the Treaty of Lisbon. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/code/information/guide_en.pdf

  • European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2006). Regulation of 15 March 2006 establishing a community code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2008). Directive of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, 2008/115/EC.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2009). Directive of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals, 2009/52/EC.

    Google Scholar 

  • European People’s Party (2009). EPP Group Report, Issue 10. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from http://www.eppgroup.eu/Press/psess09/report0911a.pdf

  • Fabbrini, S. (2005). Madison in Brussels: The EU and the US as compound democracies. European Political Science, 4, 188–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, H., & Héritier, A. (2003). Formal and informal institutions under codecision: Continuous constitution-building in Europe. Governance, 16(4), 577–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, H., & Héritier, A. (2004). Interorganizational negotiation and intraorganizational power in shared decision making: Early agreements under codecision and their impact on the European Parliament and Council. Comparative Political Studies, 37(10), 1184–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabbe, H. (2002). Justice and Home Affairs: Faster decisions, secure rights. CER Policy Brief. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/policybrief_jha.pdf

  • Guild, E., & Carrera, S. (2005). No Constitutional Treaty? Implications for the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. CEPS Working Document, 231. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from http://www.ceps.eu/book/no-constitutional-treaty-implications-area-freedom-security-and-justice

  • Guiraudon, V. (2000). European integration and migration policy: Vertical policy-making as venue shopping. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(2), 251–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausemer, P. (2006). Participation and political competition in committee report allocation: Under what conditions do MEPs represent their constituents? European Union Politics, 7(4), 505–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes-Renshaw, F., & Wallace, H. (2006). The Council of Ministers (2nd ed.). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S. (2005). The political system of the European Union. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S., & Noury, A. (2007). Politics, not economic interests: Determinants of migration policies in the European Union. International Migration Review, 41(1), 182–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honzak, R. (2008). Return Directive—A test case for future decision making. Europolitics. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://www.europolitics.info/dossiers/return-directive/a-test-case-for-future-decision-making-art147379-70.html

  • Judge, D., & Earnshaw, D. (2011). ‘Relais actors’ and co-decision first reading agreements in the European Parliament: The case of the advanced therapies regulation. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jupille, J. (2004). Procedural politics: Issues, influence, and institutional choice in the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kaunert, C. (2010). European internal security: Towards supranational governance in the area of freedom, Security and Justice, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koesters, J., Lachenmaier, A., van Bergen, J., Wagner, N., Winter, M. & Wirtz, A. (2010). Who cares about Strasbourg? The role of the European Parliament in the PNR agreements. Maastricht European Studies Papers, 1(1). Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.fdcw.unimaas.nl/mesp/Papers%20%282006%29/MESP_Koesters%20et%20al.%20_2010_.%20Role%20of%20EP%20in%20PNR%20Agreements_PUBLICATION.pdf

  • Kreppel, A., & Tsebelis, G. (1999). Coalition formation in the European Parliament. Comparative Political Studies, 32(8), 933–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavenex, S. (2006). Shifting up and out: The foreign policy of European immigration control. West European Politics, 29(2), 329–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavenex, S., & Uçarer, E. M. (2003). Migration and the externalities of European integration. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavenex, S., & Wichmann, N. (2009). The external governance of EU internal security. Journal of European Integration, 31(1), 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luedtke, A. (2011). Uncovering European Union immigration legislation: Policy dynamics and outcomes. International Migration, 49(2), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutterbeck, D. (2006). Policing migration in the Mediterranean. Mediterranean Politics, 11(1), 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, G. (2006). Committee representation in the European Parliament. European Union Politics, 7(1), 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melis, B. (2001). Negotiating Europe’s immigration frontiers. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas, V. (2010). Extraterritorial immigration control in the 21st century: The individual and the state transformed. In B. Ryan & V. Mitsilegas (Eds.), Extraterritorial immigration control: Legal challenges (pp. 39–65). Brill: Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monar, J. (2001). The dynamics of justice and home affairs: Laboratories, driving factors and costs. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(4), 747–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuhold, C. (2001). The ‘Legislative Backbone’ keeping the institution upright? The role of European Parliament committees in the EU policy-making process. European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 5(10). Retrieved February 19, 2009 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=302785

  • Neuhold, C. (2007). ‘We are the Employment Team’: Socialisation in European Parliament committees and possible effects on policy-making. Retrieved March 31, 2009 from http://aei.pitt.edu/7983/01/neuhold-c-11b.pdf

  • Peers, S. (2005). Transforming decision making on EC immigration and asylum law. European Law Review, 30(2), 285–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, A. (2007). Early conclusion in the co-decision legislative procedure. MWP working paper, European University Institute, 31. Retrieved August 9, 2009, from http://hdl.handle.net/1814/7635

  • Rijpma, J., & Cremona, M. (2007). The extra-territorialisation of EU migration policies and the rule of law, European University Institute (EUI), Department of Law. Retrieved April 12, 2012 from http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/6690/LAW_2007_01.pdf?sequence=1

  • Ringe, N. (2009). Who decides, and how?: Preferences, uncertainty, and policy choice in the European Parliament. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripoll Servent, A. (2011). Co-decision in the European Parliament: Comparing rationalist and constructivist explanations of the Returns Directive. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 7(1), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripoll Servent, A. (2012). Playing the co-decision game? Rules’ changes and institutional adaptation at the LIBE committee. Journal of European Integration, 34(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodier, C. (2005). Les camps d’étrangers, dispositif clef de la politique d’immigration et d’asile de l’Union européenne. Migreurop. Retrieved June 11, 2009, from http://www.migreurop.org/article801.html

  • Schmidt, V. A. (2006). Democracy in Europe: The EU and national polities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senato della Repubblica, (2008). Disposizioni in materia di sicurezza pubblica (provisions in the field of public security), Act of Senate n o 733. Retrieved April 19, 2011 from http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00302495.pdf

  • Settembri, P., & Neuhold, C. (2009). Achieving consensus through committees: Does the European Parliament manage? Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(1), 127–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton, M. (2000). The politics of codecision. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(2), 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton, M., & Raunio, T. (2003). Codecision since Amsterdam: A laboratory for institutional innovation and change. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(2), 171–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trauner, F., & Kruse, I. (2008). EC visa facilitation and readmission agreements: A new standard EU foreign policy tool? European Journal of Migration and Law, 10(4), 411–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, R. (2005). National parties in the European Parliament: An influence in the committee system? European Union Politics, 6(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, S. (2008). Border management in the Mediterranean: Internal, external and ethical challenges. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(2), 253–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yordanova, N. (2011). Inter-institutional rules and division of power in the European Parliament: Allocation of consultation and co-decision reports. West European Politics, 34(1), 97–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zolberg, A. R. (2002). Guarding the gates. In C. Calhoun, P. Price, & A. Timmer (Eds.), Understanding September 11. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for European Integration Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Ariadna Ripoll Servent

Authors
  1. Ariadna Ripoll Servent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ariadna Ripoll Servent .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, University of Oxford, 58 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX26QS, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom

    Bridget Anderson

  2. , Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, 3 Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX13TB, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom

    Matthew J. Gibney

  3. Somerville College, University of Oxford, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX26HD, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom

    Emanuela Paoletti

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ripoll Servent, A. (2012). The European Parliament and the Returns Directive: The End of Radical Contestation; The Start of Consensual Constraints. In: Anderson, B., Gibney, M., Paoletti, E. (eds) The Social, Political and Historical Contours of Deportation. Immigrants and Minorities, Politics and Policy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5864-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation