ADVERTISEMENTEurope wants to reduce irregular migration and speed up the return process for those whose asylum application has been rejected. With this in mind, the European Commission has proposed a Common European System for Returns. Currently, return rates stand at around 20 percent – a figure deemed insufficient by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.
The proposal includes the possibility of establishing return hubs in third countries, based on agreements concluded either bilaterally or at the European level. However, the implementation and legal feasibility of such agreements remain complex. The Italy-Albania protocol is an example of this.
In 2023, Rome and Tirana signed an agreement to create two centres initially intended to hold non-vulnerable asylum seekers coming from so-called “safe countries” rescued in international waters. Italian courts blocked the procedure three times due to legal and constitutional concerns. Rome then decided to add new functions to these centres, that have already started to be used as return hubs, for those whose asylum application has been rejected. More than 100 human rights organisations across Europe have warned that the externalisation of migration policies is likely to result in a grave pattern of human rights violations.
Italy’s aim to externalise asylum procedures: Moetaz’s case
About thirty kilometres north of Naples lies the small municipality of Parete, located in a region known for agriculture and migration. Many migrants come here in search of work. Egyptian asylum seeker Moetaz arrived in October 2024 to reunite with his father Atef (61), who came to Italy 20 years ago. Moetaz (28), crossed the Mediterranean from Libya, where he says he was detained and tortured. After being rescued in international waters, he became one of the first asylum seekers sent by Italy directly to a reception centre in Albania.
“Between the beach of Lampedusa and I, there were no more than 200 metres”, said Moetaz. “A translator came and told us we would be transferred to Albania. He said: ‘You will apply for asylum. If it’s accepted, you will go to Italy. If it’s not accepted, they will decide on your case: expulsion or prison.’
Moetaz remained in Albania only a week. The Court of Rome rejected his detention, stating it was impossible to recognise Moetaz’s country of origin as “safe”. His case has exposed the flaws of an entire system aiming to externalise the management of asylum seekers in Italy – a question now being addressed by the European Court of Justice.
Moetaz’s lawyer believes that accelerated procedures for migrants considered “non-vulnerable” and coming from so-called “safe countries” violate the Italian Constitution.
“From a human rights perspective, detaining a person in a third country — today Albania, but tomorrow it could be Tunisia, Niger, or elsewhere — means denying them the ability to exercise their fundamental rights,” said Gennaro Santoro, Moetaz’s lawyer. “Even in the case of Albania, which is a stone’s throw away from Italy, I was unable to contact my client before the hearing. Only during the hearing, I found out he had been tortured in Libya and that he was fleeing Egypt due to persecution.”
Tobé: “The EU draft regulation on returns differs from the Italy-Albania protocol
A supporter of the EU draft regulation on returns, Tomas Tobé, Vice-Chair of the European’s People Party’s Group, distanced himself from the Italy-Albania protocol. He explained the European proposal aims to use return hubs only for people whose asylum applications have already been rejected. Tobé defended the need for cooperation with third countries outside Europe:
“I’m not saying it’s easy. We don’t choose Europe’s neighbours. I hear a lot of criticism coming from the left, but also from the far right. And they are basically saying we shouldn’t have any cooperation. But then you don’t have a solution.”
Tobé stressed that people who have the right to asylum in Europe must be protected, and that negative decisions must be implemented efficiently.
In 2018 the European Commission declared that externally located return centres were unlawful. Critics argue that today, concepts once associated with the far right are increasingly becoming part of mainstream EU policy.
