Five EU states are racing to build migrant 'return hubs' before new rules are put in place, with Uganda and Rwanda rumoured as the most likely sites – but recent cases point to significant legal and practical obstacles, while the actual numbers do not match the expectations.
The EU's migration policy has increasingly centred on the controversial notion of using "return hubs" to externalise irregular migrants to third countries, as enshrined in the recently adopted Return Regulation.
Nineteen EU countries are convinced this is an "innovative solution" to pursue for migration management, as made clear in a joint letter sent to EU leaders last June, suggesting the centres would become a reality sooner rather than later.
Yet fundamental questions about how the policy would be implemented remain unanswered. How would return hubs work? Where would they be located? And which problems have they run into so far? Here, Euronews breaks down the main issues around the new migration mantra – and why the reality might not match the political narrative.
What are the legal and practical problems?
The Return Regulation does not explicitly require a human rights impact assessment, but it does state that "such an agreement or arrangement may only be concluded with a third country where international human rights standards and principles in accordance with international law, including the principle of non-refoulement, are respected".
In 2024, the EU Ombudsman criticised the Commission for signing a Memorandum of Understanding with Tunisia on border control and migration management without conducting a human rights impact assessment.
Even though the UK is no longer an EU member, the reasoning behind its Supreme Court ruling against the Rwanda asylum-transfer scheme in November 2023 is instructive: the court found Rwanda was not sufficiently safe given the risk of persecution or ill-treatment. The incoming Labour government abandoned the scheme as a result.
Meloni's own relocation scheme in Albania has run into similar judicial trouble, with Italian judges questioning the designation of countries such as Bangladesh and Egypt as "safe" – a designation Italian authorities had relied on to examine asylum applications through an accelerated procedure.
Crucially, the court cases stemming from the Albanian centres have now reached the EU Court of Justice, which has yet to rule on a central question: whether Italy can transfer someone subject to a detention order outside the EU.
Will the hubs work?
Transferring irregular migrants outside the EU's borders is likely to require lengthy negotiations with host countries, and past cases show legal challenges can easily sink the project if human rights safeguards are not in place.
In the meantime, relocating irregular migrants within the Union has proved far more straightforward, though this piles more pressure on frontline countries like Italy to uphold the country-of-first-arrival principle.
The previous experiences of externalisation or offshoring of migration management have been extremely costly, legally contested, and operationally very limited.
Despite years of preparation and massive financial investment, a total of four people were voluntarily relocated from the UK to Rwanda before that scheme was scrapped. Italy initially projected housing around 3,000 migrants a month in its Albanian centres; the actual figure has reportedly been a mere 500 in total since the conversion into a deportation centre in March 2025.
The entire bill amounts to over €670 million, and according to a recent study from an Italian University, detaining migrants in these centres has proven much more expensive for Italy than hosting them on its own territory.