A senior legal adviser to the European Union’s top court has supported Italy’s controversial plan to process asylum-seekers in detention centres located in Albania, a move that could reshape migration policy across Europe.
Nicholas Emiliou, an advocate general at the European Court of Justice, issued an opinion stating that Italy’s scheme does not violate EU law. He argued that the centres are legally acceptable because they are managed by Italy and remain under Italian jurisdiction, even though they are outside the EU.
According to Emiliou, the key condition is that migrants must continue to receive full legal protections. These include access to lawyers, translators, healthcare, and the right to apply for asylum. As long as these guarantees are upheld, he said, the centres could operate within the framework of European asylum law.
The opinion is not legally binding, but it carries significant influence. The court’s final ruling, expected later, could determine whether other EU countries adopt similar offshore migration models. If approved, it may open the door for more nations to process asylum claims outside EU borders.
However, the proposal has faced strong criticism from legal experts and human rights advocates. Critics argue that transferring asylum-seekers to non-EU countries risks weakening their rights and access to fair legal processes. Some believe the plan could undermine long-standing protections that allow migrants to seek asylum in the first EU country they enter.
Experts like Steve Peers have dismissed the legal reasoning, arguing that it attempts to treat non-EU territory as if it were part of the EU system. Others warn that the move could set a dangerous precedent by shifting responsibility for asylum processing beyond EU borders.
Similarly, Luca Masera described the proposal as a major threat to asylum rights. He warned that sending migrants out of Italy before their claims are fully reviewed could weaken the fundamental principle of protection for those fleeing danger.
The debate reflects a broader shift in Europe, where governments are increasingly tightening migration policies and exploring ways to reduce arrivals. Italy’s plan, introduced by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, is part of a wider effort to control migration flows and limit pressure on domestic systems.
In 2023, Italy signed an agreement with Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama to establish two migrant processing centres in Albania. The deal was widely criticised at the time, with concerns that migrants could be deported without proper review of their asylum claims.
Italian courts have already blocked parts of the plan, ruling that the centres may not comply with EU law. These legal challenges have frustrated Meloni’s government and have become part of a wider political debate about judicial reform in Italy.
Some researchers, including Andreina De Leo, say that even if the EU court approves the scheme, it may be difficult to implement in practice. Ensuring full compliance with EU legal standards outside the bloc could prove challenging, especially when it comes to access to legal support and quality healthcare.
There are also concerns about logistics. Lawyers may find it harder to represent clients located in another country, while strict deadlines for asylum appeals could make the process more difficult for migrants. Questions have also been raised about whether facilities in Albania can match the standards available in Italy, particularly for vulnerable individuals needing specialised care.
The case currently before the EU court involves two migrants who were transferred to Albania after being detained in Italy. After arriving, they applied for asylum, prompting legal challenges that eventually led to the EU court being asked to clarify whether the arrangement is lawful.
The outcome of the case could have far-reaching consequences. A ruling in favour of Italy may encourage other EU countries to adopt similar offshore processing systems, while a rejection could reinforce existing protections for asylum-seekers within EU borders.
As Europe continues to grapple with migration challenges, the decision will play a key role in shaping the future of asylum policy and the balance between border control and human rights.