EU approves offshore hubs for migrant returns

The European Parliament (the EU's directly elected legislature) voted on 17 June to let member states set up "return hubs": detention centres in non-EU countries where people with deportation orders wait while governments arrange their removal. The new Return Regulation replaces a 2008 directive that left wide gaps between national systems. A coalition of the centre-right European People's Party and far-right groups pushed it through (Euractiv). The Council (where national governments vote) still needs to formally adopt the text, but the political direction is locked. The only country that has actually tried this concept, Italy in Albania, spent tens of millions of euros to return five people.

The Albania Price Tag

Italy's Albania operation offers the closest thing Europe has to field data on offshore return centres. The numbers are brutal. Facilities at Shengjin and Gjader were designed for up to 3,000 people. Recent occupancy sat between 15 and 20. Construction cost roughly €74 million, according to ActionAid figures (Internazionale). Total throughput: about 620 people held, five directly returned to Egypt (IRC).

Italian courts refused to validate early detentions, ruling the government's "safe country" designations for people from Bangladesh and Egypt did not hold up (Internazionale). Separately, an advisor to the EU's Court of Justice, Advocate General Laila Medina, whose opinions typically signal how the court will ultimately rule, confirmed that offshore centres are not forbidden in principle. But EU law applies fully wherever a member state exercises control (CJEU). Moving the building does not move the person outside the rights framework.

The human cost registered fast. The IRC documented 54 "critical events" at Gjader in the first 48 days, including self-harm and suicide attempts (IRC).

A Coalition Without a Blueprint

The political alliance behind return hubs runs far wider than any operational plan. Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen wants offshore centres running during her current term (EPRS). The Netherlands has linked Dutch efforts to a cluster including Germany, Greece, Austria and Denmark (WNL). Germany's Interior Minister Dobrindt backs what his CSU party calls an "Abschiebeoffensive," a deportation push (Deutschlandfunk).

Denmark's role carries a structural irony. Under Protocol No 22 (its opt-out from EU justice and home affairs law), the regulation would not automatically apply to Copenhagen. Denmark is championing a policy it won't be bound by, acting as political icebreaker for everyone else.

Spain stands as the clearest opponent. Madrid argues the hubs risk breaching non-refoulement, the legal principle barring governments from sending people to places where they face danger (RTVE). Spanish officials also call the prospect of detaining people for up to 24 months over an administrative offence disproportionate. Under qualified majority voting (where 55% of member states representing 65% of the EU population must agree), Spain cannot block the law alone. Madrid lacks enough allies to assemble a blocking minority (El País).

France occupies deliberate middle ground: Paris backs tougher enforcement but distances itself from offshore hubs as the centrepiece (Public Sénat, Ahram/AFP).

What No Government Has Named

Supporters of the regulation point to a real problem. According to European Commission figures, fewer than 30% of EU return orders result in actual deportation (Euractiv). Some governments want third-country agreements signed this year, with operational hubs running by 2027 (Reuters via Dawn).

But no government has named a willing host country. No budget framework exists. The Commission's own proposal arrived without a public impact assessment, an unusual gap for legislation this consequential, as a College of Europe analysis noted.

Wide agreement exists that Europe's return system is broken. Italy's Albania experiment was supposed to prove that offshore processing works. So far, it has delivered something closer to a price tag.