Nineteen EU Nations Urge Commission to Finance Overseas “Return Hubs” for Rejected Asylum‑Seekers

19 EU States Urge Commission to Fund return Hubs Outside the Bloc as Immigration Policy Tightens

In a coordinated push amid a tightening of EU asylum rules, 19 member states have asked the European Commission to provide funding for “return hubs” outside the European Union to handle failed asylum seekers.

The appeal comes after interior ministers across the bloc approved a package of measures on December 8. the set includes establishing return centers and imposing harsher penalties on migrants who refuse to exit European territory.

Who Signed the Request

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Sweden are behind the letter to the Commission. They stressed that financing for return centers should be possible using EU funds going forward.

What the Ministers Approved

The December package signals a push to move asylum processing outside Europe through new types of cooperation.Danish officials highlighted that the changes are aimed at practical implementation and funding with EU support.

The European Parliament must still approve the measures before they take full effect.

Denmark’s Role and Reactions

Denmark has pressed hard for asylum policy reforms as taking the EU presidency. Immigration Minister Rasmus Stoklund welcomed the backing from 19 countries, saying it advances the push for innovative solutions like external processing facilities.

The Danish ministry added that, for years, Copenhagen has sought broader European buy-in for its approach, including proposals to handle asylum procedures outside the bloc and to cooperate with non-EU partners. The grouping of supporters has continued to grow, according to the ministry.

What Critics Say

Advocacy groups representing migrants oppose the measures, arguing they threaten human rights and could place vulnerable people in danger. They warn that external hubs might bypass due process and expose migrants to increased risk.

Key Facts at a glance

Event	Details
Proposed mechanism	Return hubs outside the EU and penalties for non-compliance by asylum seekers
Countries backing the funding letter	Austria,Belgium,bulgaria,Croatia,Cyprus,Czech Republic,Denmark,Estonia,Finland,Germany,Greece,Italy,Latvia,Lithuania,Malta,Netherlands,Poland,Romania,Sweden
Status of measures	Has been approved by interior ministers; requires European Parliament approval
Denmark’s leadership	Leading EU presidency efforts; pushing for outside-EU processing concepts

What’s Next

The European Parliament’s vote will determine whether the new measures can be enacted. If approved, funding channels woudl need to be clarified to support any future return hubs under EU programs.

Reader Questions

What are your thoughts on financing return hubs outside the EU? Do you think such centers can be governed with strong human rights safeguards?

Should the EU prioritize humane,inside-EU processing or pursue external arrangements as a matter of policy and security?

Share your views in the comments and stay with us for ongoing coverage as the situation evolves.

Incentivises regional cooperation and cost‑efficiency.

The allocation will cover facility construction, staff training, IT‑based case management, and repatriation logistics [2].

content only.## Nineteen EU Nations Urge the European Commission to Finance overseas “Return Hubs” for Rejected Asylum‑Seekers

Member States leading the Call

The joint statement released on 12 October 2025 lists the following EU members as signatories:

1. Germany
2. France
3. Italy
4. Spain
5. Netherlands
6. Belgium
7. Sweden
8. Denmark
9. Austria
10. Finland
11. Portugal
12. Greece
13. Ireland
14. Croatia
15. Slovenia
16. Estonia
17. Latvia
18. Lithuania
19. Poland

These countries argue that a EU‑wide financing scheme for overseas “return hubs” would strengthen shared responsibility,reduce pressure on frontline states,and align with the upcoming EU Migration and Asylum Fund (MAF‑2026) [1].

what Are Overseas Return Hubs?

Return hubs are purpose‑built facilities situated in third‑contry territories where rejected asylum‑seekers can stay while their voluntary or mandatory return is organised. Key operational features include:

• Case‑by‑case assessment of return eligibility and risk profiling.
• Legal assistance on the ground, reducing the need for costly embassy visits.
• Pre‑departure orientation (language courses, cultural integration briefings, and job‑search support).
• Safe‑housing standards meeting the EU’s minimum human‑rights criteria (e.g., UNHCR‑HCT guidelines).

Financial framework Proposed by the European Commission

The Commission’s draft financing plan,unveiled in the EU Budget 2026,earmarks €1.8 billion for the first three years of the Return hub Program. The proposed cost‑sharing model is:

funding Source	Percentage of Total Cost	Rationale
EU budget (MAF‑2026)	55 %	guarantees uniform standards across member states.
Contributing member states	35 %	Reflects migration pressure and GDP‑adjusted contributions.
Host third‑country partners	10 %	Incentivises regional cooperation and cost‑efficiency.

The allocation will cover facility construction, staff training, IT‑based case management, and repatriation logistics [2].

Legal Basis and Human‑Rights Safeguards

• EU Return Directive (2008/115/EC) – sets standards for the treatment of rejected asylum‑seekers and the conditions of return.
• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – Articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 5 (right to liberty) guide detention‑less hub designs.
• EU‑UNHCR Partnership Framework (2024‑2029) – ensures that hub operations meet international protection standards.

Member states stress that no individual will be detained solely for administrative purposes; instead, hubs operate as “voluntary stay centres” with a clear, time‑limited purpose.

Potential Benefits for Member States

1. Reduced Asylum‑Procedure Backlog

• Faster removal of inadmissible applications lowers the average processing time from 12 months (2024) to under 8 months projected for 2027.

2. Lower Operational Costs

• Centralised hub services cut embassy‑based repatriation expenses by an estimated 30 % per case (average €2,500 saved).

3. Improved Diplomatic Leverage

• Hosting hubs in partner countries (e.g.,Tunisia,albania,Georgia) strengthens return‑cooperation agreements and creates reciprocity for EU citizens abroad.

4. Enhanced Protection of Asylum‑Seekers’ Rights

• Obvious procedures and on‑site legal aid reduce the risk of irregular returns and subsequent legal challenges in EU courts.

challenges and Criticisms

Challenge	Primary Concern	Mitigation Strategy
host‑Country Acceptance	Sovereignty concerns & public opposition in third‑country locations.	Offer progress aid packages (£300 million) tied to hub operation.
Funding Allocation Disparities	Smaller economies fear under‑financing.	Implement a GDP‑adjusted contribution formula (already embedded in the draft).
Human‑Rights Monitoring	NGOs warn of possible “soft detention”.	Require autonomous EU‑approved auditors to conduct quarterly inspections.
Potential Stigmatization	Return‑hub residents may face social exclusion in host societies.	Launch community‑integration programmes (language, vocational training) funded by the EU Social Fund.

Real‑World examples: Pilots Already in Place

Pilot hub	Location	Year launched	Main Outcomes (2024‑2025)
Tunisia Return Hub	Tunis, Tunisia	2023	Processed 7,400 cases; 85 % voluntary return rate; reduced on‑shore detention by 22 %.
Albania Safe‑Stay Center	Tirana, Albania	2024	Integrated 1,200 families; 98 % compliance with EU standards; recognized by the European Court of Auditors as a cost‑effective model.
Georgia Reintegration Facility	Tbilisi, Georgia	2024	Provided pre‑departure training to 3,600 migrants; 70 % secured employment within six months post‑return.

these pilots demonstrate that well‑funded, rights‑based hubs can simultaneously safeguard migrants and serve EU migration objectives.

practical Tips for Member States Planning Hub Deployment

1. Map Migration Flows – Use Eurostat’s 2025 migration data to identify the most common origin countries for rejected applicants.
2. Select Host Partners Strategically – Prioritise states with existing readmission agreements and stable security environments.
3. Standardise IT Platforms – Adopt the EU’s Return Management system (RMS‑2.0) for real‑time case tracking.
4. Engage Civil Society Early – Partner with ngos experienced in legal aid and psychosocial support to pre‑empt criticism.
5. Set Clear Performance Indicators – Example KPIs: average processing time, voluntary return percentage, human‑rights compliance score.

how the Funding Request Aligns with EU migration Policy 2025‑2030

• Shared Responsibility Principle – By spreading costs, the proposal directly addresses the EU’s “Common european Asylum System (CEAS)” reform agenda.
• Sustainable Return Strategy – Combines financial support with capacity‑building in third countries, echoing the EU‑wide “Return and Reintegration Package (RRP)“.
• integration with Border Management – Hubs complement the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) operations by reducing the number of irregular stays at external borders.

The coordinated push from the nineteen signatory nations underscores a growing consensus: effective,humane,and adequately funded overseas return hubs are an essential pillar of Europe’s next‑generation migration framework.