The European Court of Justice's ruling mandates stricter definitions of "safe countries".
Italy's Migrant Processing Plans in Albania Hit by EU Court Ruling
Italy's Migrant Processing Plans in Albania Hit by EU Court Ruling
A recent decision by the EU's top court obstructs Italy's offshore asylum processing scheme.
Italy's ambitious plan to expedite asylum processing for migrants in Albania has encountered a significant setback following a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Court determined that the Italian government's existing criteria for designating a country as "safe" for returning rejected asylum seekers does not comply with EU law.
This "safe country" designation lies at the core of the agreement between Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's administration and Albania in 2023, which was designed to facilitate the quick processing of migrants intercepted at sea. Under the initial agreement, individuals from identified "safe countries" who were denied asylum could be deported within a week. However, the ECJ has clarified that a country can only be deemed "safe" if the situation allows for the general and effective protection of all individuals, without exception, necessitating Italy to revisit its assessment procedures.
The ruling generated significant backlash from government officials in Rome, who accused the European Court of overstepping its authority. They argued that such judicial oversight undermines their capacity to manage national border security. Additionally, the ECJ's decision mandates the release of any evidence and sources that the Italian government uses in its assessments, enabling asylum seekers to contest decisions regarding their status.
Katia Scannavini from ActionAid Italy remarked, "Today, the court makes clear that a country cannot be designated as safe unless it offers effective, generalised protection for everyone and everywhere." She criticized the legal foundation of the "Albania model," suggesting it is now fundamentally flawed.
The fate of the Albania plan is of particular interest to other nations, such as the UK, which have expressed a desire to handle asylum applications offshore to limit the influx of irregular migrants. However, from its inception, the initiative has faced legal challenges, and the few migrants sent to Albania were subsequently returned to Italy due to legal interventions.
The court ruling, while not opposing the concept of a fast-track asylum process for nationals of safe countries, stipulated that policy implementation must align with EU laws. Amnesty International's Adriana Tidona commented, "This puts a significant halt to Italy's plans in Albania." She also highlighted broader human rights concerns associated with the automatic detention framework upon which the Albania deal was structured and deemed unlawful.
While the ruling's implications for the upcoming EU migration pact and a standardized list of safe countries remain uncertain, it reinforces the notion that the determination of "safe countries" should not rest solely with political entities. Daniele Gallo, an EU law professor, stated, "The court indicates that judges, not politicians, must make assessments about safe countries," enforcing a requirement for Italian judges to prioritize EU law over national legislation.
This "safe country" designation lies at the core of the agreement between Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's administration and Albania in 2023, which was designed to facilitate the quick processing of migrants intercepted at sea. Under the initial agreement, individuals from identified "safe countries" who were denied asylum could be deported within a week. However, the ECJ has clarified that a country can only be deemed "safe" if the situation allows for the general and effective protection of all individuals, without exception, necessitating Italy to revisit its assessment procedures.
The ruling generated significant backlash from government officials in Rome, who accused the European Court of overstepping its authority. They argued that such judicial oversight undermines their capacity to manage national border security. Additionally, the ECJ's decision mandates the release of any evidence and sources that the Italian government uses in its assessments, enabling asylum seekers to contest decisions regarding their status.
Katia Scannavini from ActionAid Italy remarked, "Today, the court makes clear that a country cannot be designated as safe unless it offers effective, generalised protection for everyone and everywhere." She criticized the legal foundation of the "Albania model," suggesting it is now fundamentally flawed.
The fate of the Albania plan is of particular interest to other nations, such as the UK, which have expressed a desire to handle asylum applications offshore to limit the influx of irregular migrants. However, from its inception, the initiative has faced legal challenges, and the few migrants sent to Albania were subsequently returned to Italy due to legal interventions.
The court ruling, while not opposing the concept of a fast-track asylum process for nationals of safe countries, stipulated that policy implementation must align with EU laws. Amnesty International's Adriana Tidona commented, "This puts a significant halt to Italy's plans in Albania." She also highlighted broader human rights concerns associated with the automatic detention framework upon which the Albania deal was structured and deemed unlawful.
While the ruling's implications for the upcoming EU migration pact and a standardized list of safe countries remain uncertain, it reinforces the notion that the determination of "safe countries" should not rest solely with political entities. Daniele Gallo, an EU law professor, stated, "The court indicates that judges, not politicians, must make assessments about safe countries," enforcing a requirement for Italian judges to prioritize EU law over national legislation.
