Five States Target 2027 Returns

Denmark, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Greece gathered in Copenhagen on 4 September with a plan that has been doing the rounds in European capitals for months: rejected asylum seekers would be sent to facilities outside Europe while their return cases are dealt with. The target is now on paper. A deal with a partner country around the new year, and the first transfers by the end of 2027.

That is the timetable. The missing piece is still the country willing to host the hubs. After ministerial tours, delegation visits and months of political signalling, no state has signed up. Copenhagen moved the five governments closer to negotiating a deal. It did not produce one.

Three Principles, Zero Contracts

The five ministers endorsed three principles. The hubs, they said, must reduce irregular migration and dangerous crossings; comply with EU and international law, including human rights; and be built through mutually beneficial partnerships with countries outside the EU (SN, Kleine Zeitung). Dutch minister Bart van den Brink described open facilities where people could work, rather than detention centres.

Austria's interior minister, Gerhard Karner, gave the group a sharper political label: "die Umsetzer", the implementers. He wants at least one partner country in place by the end of the year (Heute). The label is doing more work than the agreement. Ministers can declare themselves implementers only once someone else agrees to implement the other half of the plan.

No host country was named at the press conference. The public trail is a mixture of rumours, denials and careful confirmations. Rwanda's foreign minister told AFP that European representatives had visited in late August and that negotiations were continuing, but gave no details and no timetable (Euractiv). Uganda, once reported as a frontrunner, may now be out of contention: the Dutch foreign ministry said co-operation with Kampala had been frozen after election-related repression (n-tv). Neither Rwanda nor Uganda has publicly committed to anything.

The Law Leaves Key Questions Unanswered

The central question is also the one being pushed furthest into the shadows: who is legally responsible for a person after transfer? For now, the answer is being left to future bilateral deals that no one has seen.

The five governments are trying to use a legal route that is only now being built. On 17 June, the European Parliament approved the new EU Return Regulation by 418 votes to 218, replacing older rules with provisions that explicitly allow transfers of rejected migrants to third-country hubs (European Parliament). Unaccompanied minors are excluded. Families with children are not, a gap criticised by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, which noted that the Commission's original proposal had excluded them too (ECRE).

The regulation still has to be formally adopted by the Council, where member-state governments approve EU law, and then published. Even after that, it will require host countries to uphold human rights and non-refoulement, the principle that a person cannot be sent somewhere they face persecution or torture. The law does not spell out who checks that compliance, or against which criteria (EU Law Analysis).

The Council of Europe's human-rights commissioner has warned that any transfers need mandatory risk assessments, binding legal grounds, effective remedies, detention limits and independent monitoring at every stage (Council of Europe). The German institute SWP goes further, arguing that the sending state must remain legally responsible until a sustainable outcome is verified for each person, not merely for the facility as a whole (SWP). The Copenhagen principles do not answer that. The bilateral agreements are meant to.

A Coalition With Opponents and Phantom Monitors

The idea has political weight behind it. In June, 19 EU heads of state signed a declaration calling for third-country solutions (Euronews). But the opposition is not marginal. France and Spain are openly against it. Emmanuel Macron said he had never seen such a hub work and would oppose EU budget funding for centres in Africa. Pedro Sánchez called the concept a "trampantojo", a misleading illusion (Le Monde).

The European Commission, meanwhile, is keeping its distance. On 13 August, it told reporters that it was not involved in the negotiations and was unaware of any concrete proposal for a hub in a specific country (European Commission).

The chain of authority is awkward. The five governments can negotiate bilateral deals themselves. The Council still has to complete the EU regulation. Courts can test individual removals. Monitoring bodies cannot be presented as overseers until they have agreed to do the job.

That last point already looks messy. Danish minister Morten Bodskov said the IOM and UNHCR would oversee the centres. UNHCR told the AP it had not been approached with details. IOM said no decision had been made and that discussions remained exploratory (WCAX/AP). Ministers are advertising oversight that the oversight bodies say they have not yet agreed to provide.

Copenhagen produced a timetable and a set of principles that few would dispute in the abstract. It did not produce the part that will decide whether the plan is real: a host country willing to sign, an accountability structure that can survive court scrutiny, and evidence that moving people to a third country leads to more returns rather than a less visible limbo. Until the "implementers" name a country and publish the terms, they are still implementing an idea.