Muhamad Yehia
The EU’s plan to outsource migration through so-called “return hubs,” which has never been tried before, is shrouded in legal uncertainty.
The European Union’s novel idea to build deportation camps outside its borders to house the asylum seekers whose applications have been denied continues to fuel concerns and doubts about its legal and logistical feasibility and the potential impact on human rights.
The unprecedented project – known euphemistically as “return hubs” – is expected to be included in a legislative proposal that the European Commission will present sometime before the next leaders’ summit in March.
It will mark the first result of the political push to work on “new ways” to manage irregular migration, a vague concept most commonly associated with outsourcing schemes.
The main focus is now on returns: the deportation of asylum seekers who have arrived in the bloc, exhausted all their legal avenues to request international protection and are therefore asked to leave the territory. The EU has for years struggled with a low rate of deportations and sees the faraway centres as an “innovative solution” worth trying
During an informal meeting of interior ministers last week, Magnus Brunner, the European Commissioner for Migration, pitched “stronger rules on detention” and the “possibility of developing return hubs,” according to the minutes exclusively seen by Euronews.
The untested plan, though, is ridden with high risks.
In a position paper released on Thursday, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) issued a pointed warning to the Commission, insisting any project to establish “return hubs” must come with strong safeguards to guarantee lawful and dignified treatment. Frontex would remain “accountable for rights violations at the hubs and during any transfers
FRA suggests the bloc should sign a “legally-binding agreement” with the host country that would set “minimum standards for the conditions and treatment” of the relocated migrants and introduce a “duty” to mitigate violations of fundamental rights. (So far, Brussels has not given any indication of where the hubs might be built.)
According to the agency, migrants sent to the centres must have a “valid and enforceable decision” based on an “individual assessment” of their asylum applications and never be subject to collective expulsions, which are illegal under international law. Vulnerable people and children should be excluded from the scheme.
“As the EU and member states try to find solutions to manage migration, they should not forget about their obligations to protect people’s lives and their rights,” Sirpa Rautio, the agency’s director, said in a statement.
“The planned return hubs cannot become rights-free zones. They would only comply with EU law if they include robust and effective fundamental rights safeguards.
How to square the circle between outsourcing and legality is still unresolved.
In a 2018 document, the Commission found that “externally-located return centres” would be unlawful because EU law prevents sending migrants “against their will” to a country they do not come from or have not passed through.
The upcoming legislation is expected to change the legal basis to enable the relocation and sustain legal challenges.
Humanitarian organisations fear the removal outside EU territory would decrease judicial oversight and lead to rampant, unchecked violations of human rights.
Earlier this week, Commissioner Brunner met with a group of NGOs to discuss the new Returns Directive. “Your insights are key to shaping fair and effective migration policy. I look forward to continue and deepen our dialogue,” he said on social media.
One of the participants, the Platform for Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), expressed serious concerns about the Commission’s plan to speed up deportations, warning the law risks being “rushed through under political pressure.”
The idea of building deportation centres outside the bloc, PICUM said, has the potential to increase “automatic arbitrary detention” of asylum seekers and infringe upon the principle of non-refoulement, which forbids authorities from deporting migrants to nations where they could face persecution, torture or any other form of ill-treatment.
Another participant, Eve Geddie, from Amnesty International, voiced similar worries and added economic costs, lack of transparency and operational challenges to the list.
“There is no evidence to suggest these schemes would be effective in either increasing returns or impacting people’s decision-making not to migrate,” Geddie said. “None.