Key Takeaways
• Return hubs proposed for migrants with final EU deportation orders, potentially in non-EU countries.
• Only 20% of EU-issued deportation orders are executed; political pressure is mounting for stricter enforcement.
• Human rights groups warn return hubs may risk refoulement, arbitrary detention, and reduced judicial oversight.
The European Union is moving forward with a plan that could change how migrants ordered to leave are processed. The idea, known as “return hubs,” aims to send people who have received final deportation orders to special detention centers in countries outside of the EU. This proposal from the European Commission, introduced in March 2025, has started a heated conversation about what it means for the law, human rights, and the proper role of the courts. Some see these return hubs as a way to improve how the EU manages migration, while others worry they may put people at risk.
What Are Return Hubs and Why Are They Being Proposed?
Return hubs are planned as detention centers located in non-EU countries. Migrants in the EU who have been given final deportation orders would be sent there while waiting to return to their country of origin. The proposal is part of a larger initiative called the Common European System for Returns, which tries to create return procedures that are fast, simple, and effective in every EU country.
The European Commission believes a shared approach can address a problem that many member countries have faced for years: a low rate of actual departures. Currently, only about 20% of migrants ordered to leave the EU actually do so. This number has put pressure on decision-makers, who now want results that are tougher but still follow the law.
A group of 17 EU member states, including Italy, Denmark, and the Netherlands, have been pushing for this kind of plan. They say that the EU needs “more effective returns” and new ideas because the current system is not working. Under the proposal, countries could sign agreements with non-EU nations to set up return hubs. Migrants whose appeals have ended would go there instead of staying in the EU before their final departure.
Other important parts of the proposal include:
- A European Return Order. This order would be added to the Schengen Information System. If one EU country orders someone to leave, that order would apply all across the EU.
- Longer detention periods. For migrants seen as security risks or those who refuse to cooperate with the deportation process, the time in detention could stretch up to 24 months.
- Legal ground for return hubs. The plan would set the rules for making agreements with non-EU countries. This could happen through bilateral deals—between two countries—or at the EU level.
By making these changes, the European Commission hopes to make the process of deportation simpler and stronger, both for national governments and for the EU as a whole.
The Push to Limit Judicial Scrutiny
One of the most disputed parts of the proposal involves who gets to check and challenge these new arrangements. According to a document from the Polish Presidency of the Council in February 2025, the agreements for return hubs should be written in a “flexible way” that tries to “prevent judicial scrutiny.” This means the organizers want fewer chances for courts to review and possibly block these agreements.
Some governments and officials argue that making the agreements less open to court review would make deportation more certain. However, this idea has not gone unchallenged.
A leading official in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), known as an Advocate General, has given an opinion that should be taken seriously. According to this opinion, while EU countries can use laws to list certain “safe countries” for migrant processing, the courts still need to have a say. This means that if someone believes their rights are not respected, they should be allowed to challenge those decisions in their national court.
If the ECJ fully rules in this direction, it could bring major problems for any plan that seeks to keep return arrangements outside of the court’s reach. In other words, attempts to avoid judicial review—whether at the national or European level—would likely face stiff resistance.
This clash over the role of courts is not just about legal principles. It is about the safety and futures of the people involved. How much power should judges have to stop a deportation if someone claims they will face harm in another country? Should deals between countries be checked for human rights standards, or is that just a delay? These are real questions EU governments now face.
Human Rights Concerns Take Center Stage
Return hubs have sparked many warnings from human rights organizations. Amnesty International and more than 100 other groups released a statement saying the proposal could lead to “a grave pattern of human rights violations, including refoulement and arbitrary detention.” The term “refoulement” means sending someone back to a country where they might face serious harm—something that is banned under international law.
Critics highlight several key concerns:
- Arbitrary detention and little oversight. Migrants could end up held for months, or even years, in facilities without regular checks or the ability to challenge poor conditions.
- Legal and social limbo. People could be sent to countries where they have no legal rights or social ties, cut off from support or proper legal help.
- Risk of chain deportations. There is a fear that migrants may be passed from one third country to another, with each move making it harder for them to find safety or justice.
- Weak protections in hosting countries. Not all non-EU countries have strong systems to defend migrants’ rights or to stop abuse.
These concerns are not just hypotheticals. The European Court of Justice has made it clear before that member states have to follow high standards when it comes to deportation. Key rules, like Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, say that no one can be sent to face torture in any country. Article 19 adds that the EU cannot expel someone if there is a risk of torture or death. These rulings set limits on what the EU and its member states are allowed to do.
Amnesty International’s statement, joined by many other groups, directly questions whether return hubs can meet the legal duties that all EU countries have promised to respect. If sending people to these detention centers leads to even the possibility of serious harm, supporters of human rights say, the proposal cannot be justified.
The Status of the Return Hubs Plan
Despite the criticism, several EU member states are already trying to find locations and partners for these return hubs. Italy, for example, has looked at converting its centers in Albania, which were first set up to process asylum claims. Those centers are empty now because legal challenges have stopped their use for months. Still, the idea is not abandoned, and Italian officials are considering turning them into full return hubs.
The European Commission, for its part, does not plan to run these facilities directly. Instead, it has offered minimum criteria for how the centers should operate. Some of the basic requirements are:
- Independent checks and monitoring of the sites
- Special protection for unaccompanied minors and families with children, to make sure they are not put at risk
- Written rules to spell out who is responsible if someone’s rights are violated
These conditions are supposed to assure the public that, even if return hubs are set up in faraway countries, the rights and safety of migrants will not be forgotten. But whether such safeguards can work in practice, especially in non-EU countries with different standards, is still very much in question.
As reported by VisaVerge.com, there are still many practical and legal barriers that must be resolved before return hubs become common practice. EU leaders and observers are watching carefully to see if the ongoing pilot projects in countries like Albania manage to respect the European Commission’s guidelines while providing an effective way to carry out deportation orders.
Why the Debate Matters
This is not the first time that the EU has tried to find new solutions to return and deportation. But the return hubs proposal represents one of its boldest steps yet—and one of its most debated.
For supporters, the main talking point is that the EU needs to keep its borders under control and enforce its rules. They say that the return hubs will make sure that a deportation order actually leads to someone leaving, not staying in the shadows. They also point to political pressure from voters who believe the existing system is too weak.
For critics, the plan risks crossing a moral and legal line. They insist that the protection of basic rights—like not sending someone to harm, and not holding people without cause—must always come first. Some worry that by trying to limit court checks, EU officials could set a bad example that would harm Europe’s reputation for standing up for the rule of law.
There is also a question of what kinds of countries will host these return hubs. Will they be places with strong legal systems and robust human rights protections? Or will economic deals lead to partnerships with countries that have a poor record? If courts are kept out of the picture, critics argue, abuses may go unpunished.
Looking Ahead
The debate over return hubs will not end soon. The European Parliament and national governments will have to review and, possibly, rewrite key parts of the proposals. The European Court of Justice may also have more to say, especially if human rights concerns take center stage or if the final rules try to limit court review even more.
Practical obstacles also remain. Building and running return hubs in non-EU countries depends on finding partners who will accept the facilities and agree to strict standards. Questions about funding, oversight, and who takes responsibility for problems are far from settled.
Some experts say that even if return hubs are put in place, they may not solve the basic problem: a lack of trust and cooperation between EU member states on migration, as well as real difficulties in sending people back to countries where they may face harm or deep hardship.
For those following the story, it is important to remember that any changes will affect real people—those caught up in migration, the governments seeking to enforce more rules, and the EU’s relationship with its neighbors.
Where Can You Learn More?
If you would like to understand more about the EU’s changing migration policy, you can visit the European Commission’s official page on returns policy. It provides background, facts, and official documents on all aspects of return and deportation. Following updates from trustworthy sources like VisaVerge.com can also help you stay informed about the latest changes as the EU keeps working through these challenging issues.
Summary
- The European Commission has proposed new rules that could put return hubs in non-EU countries, meant to make the deportation process tougher and more clear.
- Some EU countries are leading the push for these changes, but human rights groups and legal experts warn that the plan might put migrants at risk of harm and remove important legal protections.
- A major debate is going on about whether the courts should be able to check these new deals, as some want less judicial oversight.
- The plan is still in the early stages, with key decisions ahead and many questions about how it will work in practice.
- Anyone interested should keep an eye on updates from the Commission and international organizations, as this issue will play a big part in the future of migration policy in the EU.
The return hubs plan is one of the most vital developments in the EU’s approach to deportation and managing borders. Its outcome will shape the lives of thousands and set the tone for how Europe handles migration—balancing the difficult questions of control, law, and basic human dignity.
Learn Today
Return Hubs → Special detention centers in non-EU countries for migrants with final EU deportation orders, pending return to home countries.
Refoulement → The forced return of individuals to countries where they might face torture or serious harm, prohibited under international law.
Schengen Information System → A database used by EU countries to share information about border security, including deportation orders and migration status.
European Court of Justice (ECJ) → The highest court in the EU for interpreting EU law and settling disputes between member states.
Arbitrary Detention → Detaining people without sufficient legal basis or the opportunity to challenge their confinement in court.
This Article in a Nutshell
The European Union’s plan for “return hubs” could dramatically reshape deportation. By relocating migrants with final deportation orders to centers in non-EU countries, the scheme aims for efficiency but ignites controversy over human rights, legal checking, and the EU’s values. The coming debate may define European migration’s future.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• European Union Races to Save Ukraine’s Exports
• European Parliament extends trade visa-free access for Ukrainian steel
• Eight US airports connect to just one European destination
• Eurocontrol Reports European Air Traffic Soars Past 2019
• European Court of Human Rights rules Greece deported migrants illegally
