Has Italy’s Albania migrant deal completely failed?

Everything has returned to normal in the village of Gjader and the port town of Shengjin in northwestern Albania.

Almost exactly a year to the day when the parliament ratified the country’s migrant center agreement with Italy, not a single migrant is in either of the facilities constructed in Gjader and Shengjin.

The agreement signed by Italy and Albania in November 2023 and ratified by the Albanian parliament on February 22, 2024, envisioned that Italy would build migrant holding centers in Albania that would house up to 36,000 irregular migrants a year while their asylum applications are processed by Italy.

Series of setbacks for the Italian government

Since then, over 70 migrants — mainly from Africa and South Asia — have been transferred to Albania in three different groups.

The first ship, which had 16 migrants on board, was sent to Albania on October 16. All of them were sent back to Italy after a court in Rome ruled that the transfer was unlawful and that repatriating them to their countries of origin could breach international legal protections.

Two more migrant transfers followed: One group of eight was sent to Albania on November 8 and another group of 49 on January 28.

In both cases, the Rome Court of Appeal ruled that the migrants could not be held in Albania until the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has ruled on whether the asylum seekers’ countries of origin are considered safe for repatriation.

The European Court of Justice is expected to rule on the matter on February 25.

Monitors have left Albania

Meanwhile, both Italian officials and NGO experts monitoring the situation in Albania have already left the country “until further notice.”

Francesco Ferri, a migration expert at ActionAid, has been part of a delegation monitoring conditions in the Albanian centers since they were set up.

“The delegation from Tavolo Asilo e Immigrazione [a national alliance of NGOs and civil society organizations that seeks to protect migrants’ rights in Italy] has conducted monitoring missions in Albania to observe the facilities set up and the context in which they operate,” he told DW. “We are currently no longer in Albania, but we continue to monitor the situation closely from a distance and are ready to return for further observation activities.”

‘Scared, bewildered and disoriented’ migrants

All 73 migrants transferred to Albania had tried to reach Italy or Malta by boat from Libya and were, according to Ferri, “seriously afraid of being sent back to their countries of origin.”

“We met individuals who were scared, bewildered and disoriented,” he said. “They had no awareness of the procedures, were not adequately prepared to apply for asylum, and were in conditions of isolation. Their situation clearly demonstrates how the Albania model entails a systemic violation of rights.”

According to the website Infomigrants, the Italian government is now considering plans to repurpose the centers. One option believed to be on the table is the transformation of the centers into “repatriation facilities.” However, it seems likely that this plan, too, would face opposition.

Ferri is strictly opposed to such an alternative use. “It must be entirely rejected,” he said, “as it would lead to further severe human rights violations. The risk of stabilizing and expanding these structures remains real, especially if the outsourcing model were to be replicated elsewhere. The analysis of its outcomes so far indicates that the definitive closure of these centers is the only alternative.”

‘A clamorous failure’

Despite the attempts of both governments to make the agreement work, many experts and opposition parties in Italy have been against it from the word go. They consider the project an abuse of human rights and — at an estimated total cost of €1 billion ($1.04 billion) — a waste of money, too.

Elly Schlein, the leader of Italy’s center-left Democratic Party, has described the agreement as “a clamorous failure,” called on Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to resign, and said that the migrant center model in Albania will never work.

Ferri agrees. “Very few people have been transferred, and all of them were subsequently returned to Italy,” he says. “The centers remained empty for most of the year and, during operational periods, hosted only a very limited number of individuals. Organizational difficulties, legal challenges and the political context have hindered its [the agreement’s] implementation.”

Meloni determined to make the agreement work

DW contacted the Italian government, asking it for its assessment of the success of the agreement and whether it intends to repurpose the centers. No response had been received by the time of publication.

However, speaking at an event with senior police officers just a few days ago, Meloni said that her government was determined to continue with the Italy-Albania agreement.

“We are committed to finding a solution to every obstacle,” she said, adding that “Italian citizens are asking their government to stop illegal migration because it causes insecurity.”

The agreement has been the subject of debate between the Albanian government and the opposition right from the start. Indeed, the opposition Democratic Party of Albania has vowed that should it win the parliamentary election on May 11, “the contract with Italy will not be renewed.”

A test case for Europe

Earlier this week, European Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration Magnus Brunner met with Giorgia Meloni and discussed “the possible early adoption of the new concept of a safe country of origin.”

Before traveling to Italy, Brunner told the Italian media that the legislative package on migrant repatriations being examined by the European Commission would be “very ambitious” and would include “clear obligations on repatriations,” “strict rules for those representing a threat to security” and a “more coordinated” framework at European level.

Francesco Ferri is still very concerned.

“The risk remains that European governments will continue to explore outsourcing solutions, thereby reducing protections for asylum seekers and shifting the responsibility for international protection beyond the borders of the EU,” he said.

Edited by: Aingeal Flanagan