Evidence gaps persist regarding disaggregated demographic data on people in immigration detention. According to national factsheets published by the Global Detention Coalition, most Member States do not routinely share immigration detention-related data disaggregated by gender, age, and nationality.

Some Member States expanded their immigration detention rules. For example, Greece’s 2025 law on returns extends the maximum length of pre-removal detention from 18 to 24 months. In addition, the temporary suspension of access to asylum for all irregular arrivals via North Africa to Crete (see section 5) resulted in the blanket detention of approximately 2,000 people between July and October 2025, according to civil society.

Detention capacity is being increased. According to the Federal Coalition Agreement (page 179), Belgium plans to double its immigration detention capacity with three new pre-removal facilities (Zandlivet, Jumet and Jabbeke) and a ‘quick-departure centre’, as reported by the press. France equally plans to expand the capacity of its pre-removal detention centres to 3,000 places by 2027. In Cyprus, according to the Cypriot police, a new immigration detention facility started hosting the first returnees at the end of March. FRA expects that this will put an end on the holding of pre-removal detainees in sub-standard police cells. Once fully operational, the new facility, located in Limnes, will have a capacity of 800 persons.

In December 2024, the EUAA published comprehensive guidelines on alternatives to detention. They provide Member States with advice on how to use community-based alternatives, case management models, and regular reporting obligations instead of immigration detention. They complement Frontex’s compilation of good practices on alternatives to detention in return procedures. Two Spanish civil society organisations, in partnership with the International Detention Coalition, likewise emphasised the need to make more use of effective non-custodial measures in the migration context in lieu of deprivation of liberty.

Courts offer an effective remedy against unlawful detention. For example, the appeal court in Turin (Italy) has struck down detention orders that disrespect the principles set by the Supreme Court, as reported by the press in May 2025. However, developments in other Member States may weaken access to effective judicial remedies, as the following three examples illustrate. In December 2025, Germany repealed the compulsory appointment of a legal representative for the judicial procedure ordering immigration detention, introduced in 2024 after long-standing concerns by civil society actors. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee reports that their lawyers providing legal advice have been denied access to detention facilities in Hungary, except if the detainee explicitly asks for that using a special form. For Malta, the ECtHR found, in the 2025 case J.B and Others, Malta’s detention-appeals board to be neither independent, nor impartial, violating Article 5 (4) of the ECHR.

Asylum applicants and returnees must be placed as a rule in specialised detention facilities under the EU return and asylum acquis. Yet inadequate conditions continued in some facilities.

Council recommendations on addressing deficiencies identified during Schengen evaluations – a process which FRA supports with its expertise – point to several immigration detention-related shortcomings, including inadequate detention conditions. For example, the recommendations for Poland following the 2024 evaluation note the need to ensure that detainees at the Warsaw Airport Holding Facility have access to fresh air (recommendation 84) and to adjust the regime in the arrest rooms for foreigners in Przemyśl (recommendation 86). A recommendation for Slovakia following a 2024 evaluation stresses that material conditions and the regime in pre-removal centres should not be prison-like and detainees should have free access to the outdoor areas (recommendation 76).

In the 2025 case B.G v. Greece, the ECtHR found violations of the prohibition of ill-treatment (Article 3 of the ECHR) at a police station in Greece where asylum seekers were held, due to degrading detention conditions, with overcrowding, lack of hygiene and inadequate medical care.

At the end of 2024, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) documented deplorable conditions in pre-removal centres in Milan, Gradisca d’Isonzo, Potenza, and Rome, alleging physical ill-treatment and excessive use of force; over-medication; unhealthy living conditions; lack of purposeful leisure activities; and prolonged handcuffing. In October 2025, the Italian Council of State decided that the Ministry of Interior must revise the technical specifications for services in immigration detention facilities to better protect detainees’ health and prevent self-harm. Similarly, in 2025 the CPT report of its visit to Malta in 2023 expresses significant concerns, especially for detained children and trauma survivors. In their response, the Maltese authorities reported on the improvements made and planned actions to ameliorate the conditions. In a 2025 report of the CPT on Bulgaria, long-standing issues in the Busmantsi and Lyubimets immigration detention facilities were raised, on which also investigative journalists from The New York Times reported in February 2026, where material conditions remained extremely poor, with virtually all detainee accommodation areas being overcrowded, dilapidated, dirty and infested with bedbugs. The response of the Bulgarian government provided information on the measures taken to implement the CPT's recommendations. In Greece, in November 2025, the NGOs ‘Refuge Support Aegean’ and the ‘Refugee Legal Support’ submitted a complaint to the Greek Ombudsman concerning sub-standard detention conditions.

Detention of children remains a contested and evolving area, with some Member States moving towards stronger prohibitions and others expanding detention powers.

In January 2026, 16 UN Special Procedure mandate holders warned the EU institutions that the proposed Return Regulation risks normalising child detention and expanding enforcement powers, conflicting with international human rights law.

Belgium, through the 2024 Proactive Return Policy Law, legally entrenched the prohibition of immigration detention of children. France’s Law No. 2024-42 bans the detention of families with children and unaccompanied children in immigration contexts. The prohibition became effective immediately in the mainland. However, in the oversees department of Mayotte, where most child detention occurs, it will only apply as of 2027, as media reported.

By contrast, Poland’s new Article 88a (4) of the Law on International Protection entering into force in January 2026, permits immigration detention of asylum-seeking unaccompanied children, reversing earlier protections and triggering concern among child rights bodies. In Greece, Council of Europe execution documents detail persistent risks of de facto detention for unaccompanied children, entailing prolonged stays in closed “safe areas” of reception centres.