September 30, 2026 Deportation centers are legally contentious, expensive and the subject of political controversy: For years, Brussels has been grappling with the issue of establishing such centers outside the EU for rejected asylum seekers. Previous attempts have failed due to legal objections, but now, a "group of five" consisting of Greece, Germany, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands believes it has overcome these hurdles.

During an interview with the Greek television channel ANT1, Greece's Minister of Migration, Thanos Plevris, stated that the first of these so-called "return hubs" is scheduled to begin operations as early as the second half of 2027 — just in time for Greece to assume the EU Council Presidency.

Plevris said Greece had chosen an African country but could not reveal its name yet. Diplomatic circles and media outlets close to the EU have repeatedly cited Rwanda or Uganda, but neither country has been confirmed as the location.

No sealed detention centers "We are not talking about centers in the sense that someone whose asylum application is rejected is sent to a closed facility in a third country," Plevris said.

The plan was rather to establish "open facilities" while the final return to the actual country of origin is being organized, he added.

The responsibility for the transferred individuals will not be transferred to the African partner country in order to prevent legal action for human rights violations, but will remain with the five participating EU member states. The EU "group of five" will also finance the project entirely on its own.

There are also plans for international organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to monitor operations to ensure that international human rights standards and principles of international law are upheld.

Various attempts have been made in recent years to outsource asylum proceedings or deportations to countries outside the EU. None of these models worked as planned. All failed due to legal impediments, changes in government, or high costs.

Below are some of the best-known precedents.

The British "Rwanda Model" (2022–2024) The United Kingdom, under the Conservative government of Boris Johnson — and later under Rishi Sunak — sought to permanently deport migrants who had entered the country irregularly via the English Channel to Rwanda so they could undergo their asylum proceedings there.

However, the British Supreme Court ruled the plan illegal, finding that there were substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda faced a real risk of refoulement — being returned to countries where they could face persecution or other inhumane treatment. Prior to that, the British government had spent £715 million (€835 million/$966 million) in taxpayer funds on the Rwanda partnership and related implementation costs. In return, a total of four people had voluntarily relocated to Rwanda Italy's Albania model (in place since 2024) Under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Italy signed an agreement with Albania to transport migrants intercepted in the Mediterranean directly to Italian-run centers established in Albania where expedited asylum proceedings could be conducted.

However, immediately after the camps opened, Italian courts halted the relocation. Judges argued that countries of origin such as Bangladesh or Egypt should not be classified as "safe" outright if certain groups face persecution there. These first migrants had to be returned to Italy immediately.

Italy is now using one of the camps solely as a deportation center for men whose asylum applications in Italy have been definitively rejected. Since the facility was converted in March 2025, only about 500 people have been sent there. By 2028, this comes at an estimated total cost of more than €670 million ($775 million).

Denmark's stand-alone initiatives (2021–2023) In 2021, Denmark passed a law intended to allow asylum seekers to be flown to third countries outside the EU. Copenhagen engaged in intensive negotiations with Rwanda regarding a dedicated reception center. However, the European Commission and human rights organizations sharply criticized the initiative. In early 2023, the Danish government put the negotiations with Rwanda on hold. It became clear that the Danish plan was virtually impossible to implement legally and logistically. The government subsequently moved toward pursuing third-country return arrangements in cooperation with other European countries.

Changing legal framework According to previous EU law, deportations to third countries often failed as courts required that a migrant have a personal connection to that third country, whether through language skills, relatives living there or a previous stay. The revised European asylum law, however, now allows individuals required to leave the EU to be transferred to a safe third country without a prior personal connection in certain circumstances — provided there is a corresponding agreement or arrangement with the third country.

A further basis for this new joint effort is the EU Return Regulation, agreed upon politically on June 17, 2026 by the Council and European Parliament. However, the regulation has not yet been formally adopted by the Council. Unlike before, the new legislation is an EU regulation and no longer merely a directive. As a result, it will apply directly once it enters into force in the EU member states bound by it. The regulation thus establishes a common EU framework for such return centers.

Furthermore, according to the new plans, the entire asylum procedure will no longer be outsourced to non-EU countries. The United Kingdom and Italy rejected this proposal. Instead, these "return hubs" will serve solely as transit stations for individuals whose asylum applications have already been legally rejected while they are financed and monitored by EU member states. Inadequate oversight and high costs?

Supporters hope that these measures will undermine the basis for human rights lawsuits regarding permanent asylum protection. Critics such as Doctors Without Borders and Amnesty International still see significant risks: They doubt that independent oversight, effective legal representation and medical care can be fully guaranteed in the hubs. They also fear that third countries could still deport people to their unsafe home countries without proper assessment.

Furthermore, experience to date shows that the construction and security of such centers, as well as the transport of those affected, often costs hundreds of millions of euro, and only a small number of people actually end up being returned.