Crimmigration (or when regulatory simplification reveals its hidden face in immigration coverage) – Official Weblog of UNIO – Cyber Tech

Afonso Matos (Masters in European Union Legislation from the College of Legislation of College of Minho)

All through 2025, the European Fee offered ten Omnibus packages with one central goal: to simplify European Union laws, primarily by decreasing the executive prices and reporting obligations imposed on European firms, with a view to strengthening technological competitiveness.[1] This motion favours quicker procedures, much less formalism and a discount in regulatory fragmentation. Nonetheless, the logic underlying this simplex, which is now offered as a “novelty”, has already been adopted in a distinct space, with out a lot publicity, specifically immigration and asylum coverage. Right here, the fluidity between felony legislation and administrative legislation is a continuing, with the legislator’s ultimate choice – within the title of simplification and velocity – being to cope with all points beneath the umbrella of administrative legislation. Observing this, consultants analyse the phenomenon by means of the expression crimmigration.   

To grasp this phenomenon, nevertheless, it’s important to revisit the evolution of the European immigration regime. The problem started to realize prominence within the Nineteen Eighties, when the Schengen acquis led a number of Member States to abolish inside border controls, thus creating an space based mostly on free motion and residence inside European territory. And since this motion additionally included third-country nationals, it grew to become clear that there was a necessity for coordinated exterior border management able to responding to the anticipated enhance in transnational crime.[2]

Nonetheless, it was not till the Treaty of Amsterdam – efficient 1999 – that the Union acquired a proper mandate on this space,[3] when it set the aim of creating itself as an space of freedom, safety and justice, supported by measures regarding exterior border management, asylum and immigration.[4] Issues which have been consolidated as frequent insurance policies with the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into pressure in 2009.[5]

What occurs is that the frequent immigration coverage is growing in two areas: common and irregular migration. That stated, attributable to numerous elements, however primarily globalisation and the elevated visibility of migratory flows, irregular migration has been portrayed as a safety subject, not solely by Member States but additionally by the Union itself, which has targeted totally on stopping the arrival of irregular migrants and eradicating these already on its territory.[6]

It’s on this context that what is named the securitisation of immigration has emerged.[7] In line with the Copenhagen College, securitisation means presenting a difficulty as an existential risk in an effort to legitimise the usage of distinctive measures to cope with that risk.[8] That is exactly what has occurred: immigration has more and more been described as a actuality that requires an pressing response in an effort to protect the integrity of the European territory,[9] shifting from the realm of frequent coverage to that of exception.[10]

On the nationwide stage, three main threats related to migrants have been constructed: one associated to identification, based mostly on the worry that cultural variations compromise the heritage of the indigenous inhabitants;[11] one other financial, based mostly on the concept that migrants search solely to profit from state social advantages; and a 3rd associated  to work, marked by the worry of job losses within the face of competitors from the migrant working class.[12] On the supranational stage, the risk is constructed in Union paperwork that alternately use expressions that reinforce the notion that the variety of migrants could exceed the response capability of States or that migratory actions are linked to organised crime, terrorism and trafficking of arms, medicine and human beings.[13]

Throughout the Union, migration has subsequently been related to felony practices and radicalisation, one thing that, at Member State stage, is additional amplified by social establishments such because the media and far-right populist events. These, in flip, pushed by their very own pursuits, gasoline the narrative of a direct hyperlink between immigration and crime.[14]

In different phrases, each at nationwide and supranational stage, there’s a discursive dimension to the criminalisation of migration, which typically interprets into immigrants being held accountable for most felony actions[15] and turns into related insofar because the fixed repetition of those concepts facilitates their acceptance and, consequently, legitimises the appliance of extraordinary punitive measures,[16] which is exactly the place crimmigration suits in.

However what does this phenomenon of crimmigration entail? Effectively, the idea was coined by American writer Juliet Stumpf to explain the fusion between immigration legislation and felony legislation[17] that started to be noticed in the USA within the Nineteen Nineties and 2000s,[18] working in two methods: on the one hand, the convergence of the area of immigration legislation with that of felony legislation, with the appliance of immigration guidelines to these convicted of crimes, corresponding to everlasting expulsion from the territory; and, then again, the criminalisation of immigration legislation, with the appliance of felony guidelines to migrants who had not dedicated any crime.[19] In line with Stumpf, this fusion was based mostly on a notion of membership, insofar as each branches of legislation outline, every in their very own approach, who’s recognised as a member of the group, creating classes of inclusion and exclusion, specifically between “authorized” and “unlawful” and between harmless and responsible.[20]

One other related writer, additionally American, is David Sklansky, who attributes the emergence of crimmigration to an advert hoc instrumentalism, that’s, a logic that treats norms and procedures as interchangeable instruments and which, in crimmigration, interprets into the potential of treating a migrant’s behaviour as a criminal offense or not, relying on the usefulness of that choice in attaining migration targets.[21] In impact, Sklansky argues that crimmigration stems from the truth that, within the face of rising world strain in opposition to immigration, this instrumentalist facet of the intersection between felony legislation and immigration legislation presents an answer with excessive logistical effectivity and velocity[22] by permitting the mix of the decrease density of ensures and rights in immigration legislation. This, in flip, broadens the State’s margin of discretion, with the deterrent weight of the commonly extra extreme sanctions of felony legislation.[23]

Though the literature is predominantly North American, the place the idea was initially formulated, you will need to emphasise that this phenomenon has unfold to Europe, albeit with its personal traits, in accordance with Dutch authors Maartje van der Woude and Joanne van der Leun. Firstly, it ought to be famous that within the Union, crimmigration goes past the fusion of immigration legislation and felony legislation, additionally integrating social dynamics;[24] and, secondly, that instrumentalism is extra systematic, not functioning as in the USA, on a case-by-case foundation, however by means of decision-making patterns that prioritise the management of mobility.[25] Moreover, and since Member States refuse to switch the facility to punish to the Union,[26] the Union’s motion is carried out by means of the nationwide felony legal guidelines, by way of harmonisation mechanism,[27] and administrative sanctions.[28]

Thus, the practices most steadily recognized as expressions of crimmigration within the Union are: i) enhanced surveillance of exterior borders; ii) the imposition of administrative and felony sanctions on third events who work together with irregular migrants; and iii) detention used each for removing and for the processing of asylum functions.

Beginning with border surveillance, it’s value remembering that, following the wave of Al-Qaeda assaults within the early 2000s, the European Union concluded that bodily borders have been not ample to manage irregular mobility[29] and determined to maneuver in the direction of the digitisation of borders by means of biometrics,[30] i.e. applied sciences that determine every particular person based mostly on their organic traits.[31] On this approach, the border grew to become “inscribed” on the migrant themselves,[32] whose biometric knowledge is collected by nationwide authorities and built-in into central European programs corresponding to SIS, Eurodac and VIS, the place it’s in contrast with present data, enabling the authorities to confirm, within the occasion of a match, whether or not the person has beforehand been recognized in a Member State.[33]

Nonetheless, this infrastructure raises crimmigratory points, as a result of: i) biometrics used to handle mobility has traditionally been related to the felony area;[34] ii) the SIS, Eurodac and VIS databases have been reworked over time into felony investigation instruments with entry being opened as much as legislation enforcement authorities and the kind of knowledge saved being expanded;[35]^/[36]^/[37] and iii) these identical databases have been interconnected on the grounds that, by permitting fast entry to related data and identification of safety dangers, this interconnection strengthens the struggle in opposition to terrorism and crime.[38]

Shifting on to sanctions imposed on third events, it ought to be famous that this crimmigration observe differs from the others in that it’s offered as a measure that claims to guard migrants, who’re portrayed as defenceless victims of third events searching for to reap the benefits of their vulnerability, however which in actuality harms them by reinforcing the violent border regime to which they’re subjected.[39] On this space, European Union laws focuses primarily on two areas: help with entry and residence, and help with employment.

With regard to help with entry and residence, criminalisation stems from the so-called “Facilitators’ Bundle”, which classifies help with irregular entry, transit and residence as a criminal offense, on the idea that such help constitutes smuggling.[40] Thus, as within the case of help with entry and transit, monetary or materials achieve isn’t required for criminalisation – as is the case with help with residence[41]^/[42] –, even acts motivated by altruism will be criminalised, giving rise to so-called “crimes of solidarity”,[43] the aim of which is solely to discourage contact between nationals and migrants[44] and additional isolate the latter.[45]

With regard to employment, crimmigration stems from Directive 2009/52/EC, which prohibits the hiring of irregular migrants[46] and imposes management obligations on employers,[47] beneath penalty of administrative sanctions[48] and, within the presence of aggravating circumstances, felony sanctions.[49]^/[50] Though one of many said targets is to guard employees from abuse by requiring Member States to determine efficient mechanisms for migrants to lodge complaints in opposition to employers,[51] the safety supplied is extraordinarily restricted and momentary,[52] in order that many, fearing expulsion throughout the proceedings, find yourself not reporting degrading working situations.[53] This solely demonstrates that the precedence of the Directive isn’t, in reality, the safety of employees, however quite the containment of irregular migration,[54] by stopping entry to revenue on which many migrants rely to outlive within the new territory.[55]^/[56]

Lastly, with detention getting used each for the removing of irregular migrants and for the processing of asylum functions, crimmigration arises from the truth that the Union describes this measure as administrative, when, based mostly on an evaluation of the Return Directive and the Reception Circumstances Directive, which regulate this type of detention, it’s clear that we’re, in reality, coping with a measure of a felony nature. Certainly, a robust presumption of punitive intent outcomes from its features, specifically: i) deterrence, when detention is justified by the danger of absconding, revealing the intention to restrict irregular entry and keep or to strain migrants to adjust to the removing process;  ii) retribution, when detention is justified by the migrant’s alleged obstruction of the preparation of their return, functioning as a response in opposition to them for his or her lack of cooperation;[57] and iii) incapacitation, when detention is justified by the safety of public order, based mostly on the logic that migrants, attributable to their socio-economic vulnerability, usually tend to break the legislation.[58]

This felony nature is, in flip, not dominated out by the extent of severity of the measure, on condition that each directives enable detention in prisons within the absence of specialized centres[59] and authorise extended intervals of deprivation of liberty.[60]

Moreover, the presentation of detention as a measure of mere administrative comfort is especially related within the context of crimmigration, because it permits for the removing of procedural ensures particular to felony legislation, specifically, and in accordance with the European Conference on Human Rights (ECHR), the important ensures of a good trial offered for in Article 6 of the ECHR,[61] together with the rules of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings, and the rights to silence and to not incriminate oneself.[62]

All of this results in a transparent conclusion: European decision-makers resort to the rhetoric of administrative comfort to legitimise devices that, in observe, are felony in nature, thus avoiding the ensures that such devices require. This confirms the instrumentalism described by Sklansky and, on the identical time, the interpretation of van der Woude and van der Leun, who argue that, not like in the USA, this instrumentalism in Europe assumes a structural type, with crimmigration embedded from the outset within the authorized norms, that are designed on the premise of the marginalisation of irregular migrants. 

It’s exactly within the theses of Sklansky, van der Woude and van der Leun that we discover the logic that right this moment emerges explicitly within the so-called Omnibus packages: that of regulatory simplification because the dominant criterion of governance. On this context, two packages specifically are value highlighting. Firstly, the so-called “Defence Readiness Bundle”, which seeks to determine a mindset of defence preparedness all through the European Union, based mostly on the premise that threats on the borders are rising at an accelerated tempo, whereas European industrial and institutional capability stays insufficient and outdated,[63] and which may subsequently be learn within the mild of the securitisation course of. Secondly, the so-called “Digital Bundle”, which, by selling simpler use of private knowledge and better integration of IT programs,[64] resembles the sphere of exterior border digitisation, through which a central position is assigned to massive European data programs for the gathering, storage, processing and interconnection of private knowledge.

The issue within the context of crimmigration is that the Space of Freedom, Safety and Justice can’t be diminished to its safety dimension, as it’s also linked to the elemental values of the Union: amongst them, democracy and the rule of legislation. These values have been compromised by the regulatory simplification ensuing from crimmigration, notably in its instrumental dimension, which distorts the system of authorized ensures within the title of environment friendly migration management, in an space the place each choice has notably extreme penalties. In view of this, though the Union should, in fact, be capable of shield itself, this safety can’t be guided solely by securitisation. It’s important to advertise a brand new steadiness between safety and basic rights to make sure that the response to migration doesn’t jeopardise the rules that construction the European authorized system.[65]

[1] European Council & Council of the European Union, “Simplification of EU guidelines”, accessed December 29, 2025, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/insurance policies/simplification/.

[2] Monika Kabata, “The intersection of counter-terrorism, migration and border management insurance policies within the European Union: the securitisation of migration?” (PhD diss., Nottingham Trent College, 2022), 53.

[3] Martin Wagner, Alan Desmond and Albert Kraler, “MIrreM Working Paper No 8/2024: EU Coverage Framework on irregular migrants”, Measuring Irregular Migration, April 2024, 13, https://www.icmpd.org/file/obtain/61067/file/MIRREMpercent2520Workingpercent2520Paper_EUpercent2520Policypercent2520Frameworkpercent2520onpercent2520irregularpercent2520migrants.pdf.

[4] Nuno Piçarra, “Espaço de liberdade, segurança e justiça”, in Enciclopédia da União Europeia, ed.  Ana Paula Brandão et al. (Vila Franca de Xira: Petrony, 2017), 169.

[5] António Vitorino, “Artigo 67.º TFUE”, in Tratado de Lisboa anotado e comentado, ed. Manuel Lopes Porto and Gonçalo Anastácio (Coimbra: Almedina, 2012), 372.

[6] Wagner, Desmond and Kraler, ““MIrreM Working Paper No 8/2024: EU Coverage Framework on irregular migrants”, 13.

[7] Matija Frčko and Davor Solomun, “Securitization of migration and migration coverage within the European Union”, in Prison justice and safety in Central and Jap Europe: from frequent sense to evidence-based policy-making, Convention Proceedings (Maribor: College of Maribor Press, 2018), 350.

[8] Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and, Jaap de Wilde, Safety: a brand new framework for evaluation (Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), 21.

[9] Nafisa Abdulhamid, “The securitization of immigration within the European Union: a brand new (cultural) racism”, Centre for Worldwide Coverage Research (CIPS), v. 9 (2018): 48, accessed December 29, 2025, url:https://uottawa.scholarsportal.data/ottawa/index.php/potentia/article/view/4442.

[10] Frčko and Solomun, “Securitization of migration and migration coverage within the European Union”, 350.

[11] Salih Turgay and Pelin Sönmez, Migration as a securitized phenomenon: an evaluation of the societal safety when it comes to EU notion (Eskişehir: Eskisehir Osmangazi College, 2024), 279-284.

[12] Noora Mattsson, “Securitization of immigrants – and its political impacts on European Union” (Grasp’s diss., Charles College, 2016), 16.

[13] Felicia Matz Wennerhed, “The securitization of migrants – a vital discourse evaluation of migration in EU coverage” (Bachelor’s diss., Lund College, 2016), 21-23.

[14] Joanna Parkin, “The criminalisation of migration in Europe. a state-of-the-art of the educational literature and analysis”, Centre for European Coverage Research (CEPS), no. 61 (2013): 5, accessed December 29, 2025, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2350119.

[15] Salvatore Palidda, “A overview of the principal European nations”, in Racial criminalization of migrants within the twenty first century (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), 23.

[16] Parkin, “The criminalisation of migration in Europe. a state-of-the-art of the educational literature and analysis”, 2-3.

[17] Juliet Stumpf, “The crimmigration disaster: immigrants, crime, and sovereign energy”, American College Legislation Overview, v. 56, no. 2 (2006): 376, accessed December 29, 2025, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=935547.

[18] Cristina Fernández-Bessa, José Ángel Brandariz and Elisa García España, “Present debates on immigration, crime, and penality: an introduction”, Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica, v. 18, no. 2 (2020): 5, accessed December 29, 2025, https://ruc.udc.es/relaxation/api/core/bitstreams/39cf00ea-05ed-429e-912e-a2e963a60f0d/content material.

[19] Maria João Guia and João Pedroso, “A insustentável resposta da «crimigração» face à irregularidade dos migrantes: uma perspetiva da União Europeia”, Revista Interdisciplinar da Mobilidade Humana, v. 23, no. 45, (2015): 132, accessed December 29, 2025, url:https://www.scielo.br/j/remhu/a/BqMJgwkHB6QnxWgdryfDVBc/?format=pdf&lang=pt.

[20] Stumpf, “The crimmigration disaster: immigrants, crime, and sovereign energy”, 380.

[21] David Alan Sklansky, “Crime, immigration, and advert hoc instrumentalism”, New Prison Legislation Overview, v. 15, no. 2, (2012): 161, accessed December 29, 2025, https://on-line.ucpress.edu/nclr/article/15/2/157/68736/Crime-Immigration-and-Advert-hoc-Instrumentalism.

[22] José Ángel Brandariz, “Criminalization or instrumentalism? New tendencies within the area of border criminology”, Theoretical Criminology, v. 26, no. 2 (2021): 290, accessed December 29, 2025, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13624806211009158.

[23] J. Brouwer, Detection, detention, deportation: felony justice and migration management by means of the lens of crimmigration (PhD diss., Leiden College, 2020), 12.

[24] Maartje van der Woude and Joanne van der Leun, “A mirrored image on crimmigration within the Netherlands: on the cultural safety advanced and the impression of framing”, in Social management and justice: crimmigration within the age of worry (The Hague: Eleven Worldwide Publishing, 2013), 43.

[25] Brandariz, “Criminalization or instrumentalism? New tendencies within the area of border criminology”, 289.

[26] Mário Ferreira Monte, O direito penal europeu de “Roma” a “Lisboa” – subsídios para a sua legitimação (Lisboa: Quid Juris, 2009), 112.

[27] Anabela Miranda Rodrigues, O direito penal europeu emergente (Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 2008), 87-88.

[28] Rodrigues, O direito penal europeu emergente, 83.

[29] Philippa Metcalfe, «“It’s not a bug, it’s a function”; management and injustice in datafied borders» (PhD diss., Cardiff College, Cardiff, 2022), 27.

[30] Lillie Hafner, «Capturing “the crimmigrant”: empirical proof of crimmigration within the digitalization of EU migration administration» (Bachelor’s diss., Twente College, 2023), 6.

[31] Anastasia Sarantopoulou, “Biometrics on the gate: an evaluation of EU’s biometrical borders” (Grasp’s diss., Tilburg College, 2021), 17-18.

[32] Aleš Završnik, “The European digital fortress and enormous biometric EU IT programs: border criminology, expertise, and human rights”, Two Homelands, no. 49 (2019): 57, accessed December 29, 2025, https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/twohomelands/article/view/7253.

[33] Valeria Ferraris, “Entangled within the technology-driven borderscape: border crossers rendered to their digital self”, European Journal of Criminology, v. 20, no. 5 (2023): 1745-1746, accessed December 29, 2025, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14773708221086717.

[34] Nina Amelung, «“Crimmigration management” throughout borders: the convergence of migration and crime management by means of transnational biometric databases”, Historic Social Analysis, v. 46, no. 3 (2021): 158, accessed December 29, 2025, https://www.jstor.org/secure/27075121.

[35] Giray Sadik and Ceren Kaya, “The position of surveillance applied sciences within the securitization of EU migration insurance policies and border administration”, Uluslararasi Iliskiler, v. 17, no. 68 (2020): 152, accessed December 29, 2025, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/obtain/article-file/1497664.

[36] Maria Benedita Queiroz, “Illegally staying within the EU: an evaluation of illegality in EU migration legislation” (PhD diss., European College Institute, 2015), 183-184.

[37] Tim Dekkers, “Know-how pushed crimmigration? Operate creep and mission creep in Dutch migration management”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Research, v. 46, no. 9 (2019): 1850, accessed December 29, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1674134.

[38] Lauren Elrick, “Discovering the steadiness between safety and human rights within the EU border safety ecosystem”, European Journal of Legislation and Know-how, v. 12, no. 1 (2021): 23, accessed December 29, 2025, url:https://analysis.rug.nl/en/publications/finding-the-balance-between-security-and-human-rights-in-the-eu-b/.

[39] Deanna Dadusc and Pierpaolo Mudu, “Care with out management: the humanitarian industrial advanced and the criminalisation of solidarity”, Geopolitics, v. 27, no. 4 (2022): 1210-1212, accessed December 29, 2025, url:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14650045.2020.1749839.

[40] Maurizio Ambrosini and Minke Hajer, Irregular migration: IMISCOE brief reader (Berlin: Springer, 2023), 88.

[41] Article 1(1) of Directive 2002/90/EC.

[42] Cristina Pugnale, “Humanitarian human smuggling: the European and Italian anti-smuggling laws” (Diss., College of Graz, 2019), 41-42.

[43] Meral Balci and Ceren Karagözoğlu, “The issue of the criminalisation of humanitarian help within the context of the 2002 European Union Directive and Framework Resolution on strengthening the felony framework to stop the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence”, Journal of Penal Legislation and Criminology, v. 11, no. 2 (2023): 207, accessed December 29, 2025, https://iupress.istanbul.edu.tr/en/journal/jplc/article/izinsizgiris-gecis-ve-ikametin-kolaylastirilmasini-onlemek-icin-cezai-cercevenin-guclendirilmesine-iliskin-2002-tarihli-avrupa-birligi-direktifi-ve-cerceve-kararibaglaminda-insani-yardimin-cezalandirilabilirligi-sorunu.

[44] Valsamis Mitsilegas, “The altering panorama of the criminalisation of migration in Europe: The protecting perform of European Union legislation”, in Social Management and justice: crimmigration within the age of worry (The Hague: Eleven Worldwide Publishing, 2013), 94.

[45] World Organisation In opposition to Torture, “Europa: cerco a la solidaridad. Análisis de los patrones de criminalización de la solidaridad através de las voces de quienes defienden los derechos de las personas migrantes”, November 2021, accessed December 29, 2025, https://www.omct.org/site-resources/legacy/Europa-Cerco-a-la-Solidaridad_2021-11-15-150021_tdsp.pdf.

[46] Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/52/EC.

[47] Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/52/EC.

[48] Articles 5, 6 and seven of Directive 2009/52/EC.

[49] Articles 9(1) and 10(1) of Directive 2009/52/EC.

[50] Constança Urbano de Sousa, “Directiva 2009/52/CE – 18 junio 2009 – sanciones empleadores de nacionales de terceros países en situación irregular” (paper offered on the annual assembly for the European Immigration Legal professionals Community, Santander, Spain, 17-19 April, 2015), 1.

[51] Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/52/EC.

[52] Article 13(4) of Directive 2009/52/EC.

[53] Sousa, “Directiva 2009/52/CE – 18 junio 2009 – sanciones empleadores de nacionales de terceros países en situación irregular”, 8-10.

[54] Sousa, “Directiva 2009/52/CE – 18 junio 2009 – sanciones empleadores de nacionales de terceros países en situación irregular”, 7.

[55] Oleg M. Yaroshenko et. al, “Combating the unlawful employment of third-country nationals within the Member States of the European Union”, Krytyka Prawa, v. 14, no. 2 (2022): 209, accessed December 29, 2025, https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1062266.

[56] Anna Iermano, “The brand new EU motion plan in opposition to migrant smuggling as a «renewed» response to the rising challenges”, in Worldwide Migration and the Legislation, ed. Angela Di Stasi, Ida Caracciolo, Giovanni Cellamare, Pietro Gargiulo (London: Routledge, 2024), 527.

[57] Izabella Majcher, “The effectiveness of the EU return coverage in any respect prices: the punitive use of administrative pre-removal detention”, Ius Gentium: Comparative Views on Legislation and Justice, v. 81 (2020): 113-116, accessed December 29, 2025, https://hyperlink.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-43732-9_6.

[58] Majcher, “The effectiveness of the EU return coverage in any respect prices: the punitive use of administrative pre-removal detention”, 117.

[59] Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC and article 12(1) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346.

[60] Article 15(6) of Directive 2008/115/EC and article 11(1) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346.

[61] Stella Afxentiou, “Immigration detention in Europe as an expression of crimmigration: interactions, tensions and complementarity between EU legislation and the ECHR” (Thesis: College of Cyprus, 2024), 41-44,  https://gnosis.library.ucy.ac.cy/entities/publication/b171f783-cacb-482f-8ee6-8d3cd3fc375e.  

[62] Lorenzo Bernardini, Administrative immigration detention as a punitive measure: is it time for a brand new standpoint? (Naples: Editoriale Scientifica, 2023), 256-257.

[63] European Fee, “Defence readiness Omnibus: simplification proposal to spice up industrial readiness”, accessed December 29, 2025, https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/defence-readiness-omnibus_en.

[64] European Fee, “Digital Bundle”, accessed December 29, 2025, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/digital-package.

[65] Roila Mavrouli, “The problem of right this moment’s Space of Freedom, Safety and Justice: a re-appropriation of the steadiness between claims of nationwide safety and basic rights”, Rivista quadrimestrale on line sullo Spazio europeo di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia, no. 2 (2019): 118, accessed December 29, 2025, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7055657.

Image credit score: by Jakub Zerdzicki on pexels.com.