EU clears external return hubs

The European Parliament voted on 17 June to allow member states to set up "return hubs": detention centres in non-EU countries where people under deportation orders would be held while governments arrange their removal. For Malta, this is not distant Brussels machinery. It touches the same Mediterranean migration file that has shaped local politics for two decades.

The new Return Regulation replaces a 2008 directive that left member states with very different systems. It passed through an alliance between the centre-right European People's Party and far-right groups (Euractiv). The Council, where national governments vote, still has to formally adopt the text, but the political decision has effectively been made. The only country that has tested the idea, Italy through its Albania scheme, has spent tens of millions of euro to return five people.

The Albania Price Tag

Italy's Albania operation is the nearest thing Europe has to real evidence on offshore return centres. The figures are stark. Facilities at Shengjin and Gjader were built for up to 3,000 people. Recent occupancy has been between 15 and 20. Construction cost about €74 million, according to ActionAid figures (Internazionale). Around 620 people have been held there. Five were directly returned to Egypt (IRC).

Italian courts refused to validate early detentions, finding that the government's "safe country" designations for people from Bangladesh and Egypt did not stand up (Internazionale). Separately, Advocate General Laila Medina, an adviser to the EU's Court of Justice whose opinions often indicate where the court is heading, said offshore centres are not banned in principle. But EU law still applies wherever a member state exercises control (CJEU). Shifting the building outside the Union does not shift the person outside the rights system.

The human cost appeared quickly. 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 coalition behind return hubs is much broader than the operational plan. Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen wants offshore centres running during her current term (EPRS). The Netherlands has linked its own efforts to a group 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 position carries a built-in contradiction. Under Protocol No 22, its opt-out from EU justice and home affairs law, the regulation would not automatically apply to Copenhagen. Denmark is pushing a policy it would not itself be bound by, while opening political space for others to follow.

Spain is the clearest opponent. Madrid says the hubs risk breaching non-refoulement, the legal rule that bars governments from sending people to places where they face danger (RTVE). Spanish officials also argue that detaining people for up to 24 months over an administrative offence would be 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 does not have enough allies to form a blocking minority (El País).

France has chosen a careful middle line: Paris supports tougher enforcement, but does not want offshore hubs to become the centrepiece of the policy (Public Sénat, Ahram/AFP).

What No Government Has Named

Supporters of the regulation are pointing to a real failure. Commission figures show that fewer than 30% of EU return orders lead to actual deportation (Euractiv). Some governments want agreements with third countries signed this year, with hubs operating by 2027 (Reuters via Dawn).

But no government has named a willing host country. There is no budget framework. The Commission's proposal also came without a public impact assessment, an unusual omission for legislation of this weight, as a College of Europe analysis noted.

There is broad agreement that Europe's return system is failing. Italy's Albania scheme was meant to show that offshore processing could work. So far, it has shown mainly how expensive the promise can become.