Italy's Offshore Migrant Processing Plan Faces Legal Setback from EU Court

Italy's plan to streamline the processing of migrant applications in Albania has been significantly hindered by a recent ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which asserts that the Italian government’s criteria for determining a "safe" country violates EU law. The court emphasized that a country can only be deemed safe if it affords general protection to all its inhabitants, calling into question Italy's designations of countries like Egypt and Bangladesh. The ruling sparked indignation from the Italian government, which perceives it as an infringement on national sovereignty and border security measures. This event further complicates Italy’s immigration strategy, particularly the controversial Albanian deal that aims to expedite asylum procedures. As the government grapples with these legal challenges, the implications may ripple across other European nations contemplating similar offshore processing agreements.

Italy's offshore asylum processing plan has encountered significant legal hurdles, as the European Court of Justice rules that its criteria for "safe" countries is not compliant with EU regulations. The ruling challenges Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's agreement with Albania and complicates Italy's immigration strategy amid widespread concern over human rights implications.



The recent verdict from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has put a substantial strain on Italy's efforts to implement a fast-track system for processing migrant applications offshore in collaboration with Albania. The court ruled that Italy's current methodology for identifying "safe" countries does not align with EU law, declaring that a nation can only be classified as safe if it provides comprehensive protection to its entire population. This ruling casts doubt on Italy's designations of countries like Egypt and Bangladesh as safe, despite acknowledging that particular groups therein may require protection.

Italian officials reacted strongly against the ruling, claiming the ECJ overstepped its jurisdiction and asserting that such legal interpretations would undermine a nation's ability to safeguard its borders. The ruling mandates transparency regarding any evidence used by the Italian government to designate a country as safe, allowing asylum seekers to contest decisions made about their claims. Katia Scannavini from ActionAid Italy argued that this declaration effectively dismantles the legal foundations of the Albanian model.

The legal issues surrounding the Albania deal are closely monitored by other nations, including the UK, who are exploring offshore options for managing their own asylum applications. Initially intended to reinforce Prime Minister Meloni's stringent immigration policy, the Albania agreement has faced continual legal obstacles, with numerous migrants returned to Italy after legal intervention. Furthermore, the migrant centers constructed for this initiative remain unused and have exceeded budget constraints.

While the court did not oppose the concept of a fast-track procedure for migrants from designated safe countries, it insisted that the operational details must conform to EU legislation. Amnesty International noted that unless Italian law changes to reflect these new rulings, the entire plan will remain stalled. The organization also highlighted potential human rights violations inherent in the model, viewing it as fundamentally flawed due to its reliance on an automatic detention framework.

The decision also raises questions regarding the future EU migration pact set to come into effect next year, which will establish a unified list of safe nations. However, the ECJ made it clear that the authority to define safe countries does not rest with the government but with the judiciary, obliging judges throughout Italy to abide by EU law over national legislation. This legal ruling signifies a considerable setback for Italy’s migration policy and its aspirations toward offshore processing in Albania.