Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.
YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED
The table below compares developments in EU Member States over the past five years. The overview does not cover the pool of forced return monitors under the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex.
Two aspects warrant highlighting. First, in 2014, ten EU Member States lacked operational return monitoring systems that FRA considered sufficiently independent to qualify as “effective”. By 2018, that number dropped to three – and two of these were taking steps to have effective monitoring systems by 2019. Second, developments have not been linear: in at least two EU Member States – Croatia and Lithuania – monitoring was project-based and was suspended when funding came to an end. In France, the independent authority tasked with forced return monitoring did not carry out any such mission in 2016, resuming them in February 2017.
Notes:Operational means that a monitoring entity, which is separate from the authority in charge of returns, has been appointed and has carried out some monitoring activities during the year.
* Ireland and the United Kingdom are not bound by the Return Directive (2008/115/EC).
** In Germany, Slovakia and Sweden, the monitoring body appointed by law is an agency/entity belonging to the branch of government responsible for returns. Thus, FRA considers that it is not sufficiently independent to qualify as ‘effective’ under Article 8 (6) of the Return Directive. In Germany, the effective forced return monitoring system, operated by NGOs at certain airports, covers only parts of the country.
*** In France, the “Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté” did not monitor any forced return operations during 2016.
Source: FRA, 2019
Find additional data on forced return monitoring systems in our interactive data explorer.
The information on this page is up to date as of 26 June 2019.