EU deportation hubs lack hosts

No third country has agreed to host a deportation centre for the EU. That is the basic problem behind the new Return Regulation, approved by the European Parliament on 17 June, which would for the first time give member states a legal basis to run removal facilities outside EU territory (European Parliament, DW).

Nineteen EU leaders have urged the European Commission to move quickly, including by putting EU money behind the centres (Statsministeriet). Austria, Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands are said to be looking at possible locations. The Council, where national governments co-legislate, still has to give its formal approval. But the real leverage sits with the state that would accept detainees on its territory, and so far no one has said yes.

Why Most Deportation Orders Go Nowhere

Supporters are pointing to a failure that is real. Only around 28% of EU return decisions end with the person actually leaving, according to the regulation's parliamentary rapporteur Malik Azmani (EP interview). The new rules would create a European Return Order valid across member states and allow people to be transferred to detention outside the EU's borders.

But most failed deportations do not fail because of the building in which someone is held. They fail because countries of origin refuse travel documents, consulates delay, or courts intervene. A College of Europe analysis identified the main blockage clearly: securing cooperation from origin countries and getting them to accept returnees (College of Europe). Parliament can authorise the mechanism. It cannot force a third country to host a centre, or an origin country to take its nationals back.

Italy Tried. Five People Were Returned.

Italy is the only government to have tested something close to this model. Two facilities in Albania, one for identification at Shëngjin and one for detention at Gjadër, operate under Italian law. After courts rejected the first detentions in late 2024, Rome shifted from offshore asylum processing to holding people who had already been ordered to leave (EFE).

The results have been thin. Internazionale, citing documents obtained by Altreconomia, reported five migrants returned directly from Albania to Egypt. Others transferred to Albania ended up back in Italy. The same investigation counted 54 incidents requiring emergency response in Gjadër's opening days (Internazionale).

The legal issue is still open. According to an ECRE/ELENA update, the Albanian model is before the EU's Court of Justice in joined cases C-706/25 and C-707/25, which test whether the facilities comply with EU asylum law (ECRE/ELENA). Giorgia Meloni says the Parliament vote validates her approach (La Nación). The courts have not said so.

The Funding Fight and the Rights Question

Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has put forward the clearest timetable: agreements by the end of 2026, centres operating from 2027 (Le Monde). Germany, although it joined a working group on possible hub locations, did not sign the letter backed by the 19 leaders (EUobserver).

France and Spain cannot block the regulation under qualified majority voting, the EU system where a large enough group of countries representing a large enough share of the population can pass a law without unanimity. But Emmanuel Macron said France would oppose EU budget financing for the centres, while Pedro Sánchez called them ineffective and damaging to relations with transit countries Europe still depends on (Euronews, El País). They may not be able to stop the law. They can make it harder to finance and harder to defend.

The regulation also removes an important safeguard. Appeals against deportation would no longer automatically suspend removal; judges would decide that case by case (European Parliament, Politis). The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that governments cannot outsource responsibility if someone is detained unlawfully or denied an effective appeal (European Times). Amnesty has raised the risk of people being held in countries where they have no ties and no access to lawyers (Amnesty).

Parliament has approved the framework. The Council still has to sign off. A host country still has to agree. Courts in Luxembourg and Strasbourg still have to decide whether EU rights protections follow people beyond the EU's borders. The political push is there. The working model is not.