Return hubs are moving closer to becoming a reality after Germany, Austria, Greece, Denmark and the Netherlands agreed to work towards a deal with a non-EU country that could receive migrants who have no legal right to remain in the bloc.
The five countries, known as the Group of Five, want to identify at least one partner country and reach an agreement by the end of 2026. Denmark has set a more specific target, saying it hopes to begin transferring people to a return facility outside the EU by the end of 2027.
The issue was discussed by the five countries’ interior ministers in Copenhagen on Friday. No potential host country was named, but German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said the group was determined to secure an agreement with a third country before the end of the year. The ministers are due to meet again in Munich at the end of September.
Danish Immigration and Integration Minister Morten Bødskov said the countries hoped to establish a common understanding with a partner around the New Year. He rejected comparisons between the proposed facilities and detention camps, arguing that people sent there would have the opportunity to live and work in the country hosting the facility.
“It’s a new chance to have a life in a partner country,” Bødskov told reporters in Copenhagen.
The proposed return hubs are intended for people who are required to leave the EU but cannot, for various reasons, be returned to their countries of origin. The concept has gained momentum following changes to the EU’s migration and return framework, which provides a legal basis for member states to use facilities outside EU territory.
The policy is nevertheless facing serious questions over how people transferred to such facilities would be treated and what legal protections would apply to them.
The Council of Europe warned in July that return hubs could create considerable human rights risks. Amnesty International has also criticised the idea, arguing that moving return procedures outside the EU could leave migrants vulnerable to serious abuses and weaken safeguards that apply within European territory.
Eve Geddie, director of Amnesty International’s European Institutions Office, said the model could expose people to risks including arbitrary detention, torture, ill-treatment and forced onward returns. Amnesty has also expressed concern about reports of possible discussions involving Uganda and Rwanda, pointing to its previous documentation of human rights abuses in both countries.
The organisation argues that outsourcing responsibility for migrants could place additional pressure on countries with fewer resources while making it harder for individuals to challenge decisions or secure protection against refoulement, the forced return of someone to a place where they could face serious harm.
Questions have also been raised about whether the system would actually result in people being returned. The Centre for European Policy Studies, a Brussels-based think tank, has argued that return hubs could instead become long-term holding facilities for people who cannot ultimately be sent back to their countries of origin.
CEPS has highlighted provisions in the EU’s new Return Regulation that broaden the circumstances under which a person can be transferred to a third country. Under the new framework, a country does not necessarily need to have a previous connection with the individual before accepting them, provided it agrees to receive the person.
The think tank has also questioned the reliance on non-binding agreements with partner countries, warning that such arrangements could receive less parliamentary and judicial scrutiny. It has compared the proposal with previous attempts to move parts of migration processing outside Europe, including Italy’s arrangements in Albania and Australia’s offshore migration system, both of which faced legal challenges and questions over their cost and effectiveness.
Another concern is the treatment of families. CEPS has pointed out that families with children are not expressly excluded from return hubs under the new EU framework, while unaccompanied minors remain outside the scheme.
The governments backing the initiative insist that human rights protections will remain part of the process. Dutch Migration Minister Bart van den Brink said the countries intended to ensure that the system complied with human rights obligations.
Bødskov has also said the International Organization for Migration and the UN refugee agency would be involved as discussions progress. The UNHCR, however, said it had not been given details of the proposal and could not comment on the specific arrangements being considered.
The debate is also relevant to Finland, which is preparing for the EU’s new return rules and has begun examining the possibility of return hubs with other Nordic countries.
Finnish Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said in June that preliminary work on the model had begun. Finland is also preparing changes to national legislation to bring its system into line with the EU Return Regulation. Those preparations include provisions for longer detention during return procedures and longer fixed-term entry bans, while the rules governing return hubs are expected to apply directly at EU level.
Finland has not chosen a host country for a potential facility. Rantanen has previously indicated that such centres could be particularly relevant in cases where deportations are difficult to carry out.
At the same time, Finland is strengthening its migrant screening capacity under the EU Migration and Asylum Pact. A EUR 2.55 million project led by the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service is being developed to improve security screening systems for people arriving in Finland.
For the five EU governments pursuing the return hub model, the coming months will be important. They need to find a willing partner country, agree on the practical arrangements and address the legal and human rights concerns surrounding transfers outside the EU. Whether the proposed system becomes a workable tool for enforcing returns or creates a new layer of contested migration infrastructure will depend largely on how those questions are resolved.
