Italy tries to fill its Albanian migrant center after legal woes

Undocumented migration via the Central Mediterranean route between North Africa and Italy fell by 59 percent last year, with 67,000 migrant arrivals. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 29 March 2025
Follow

Italy tries to fill its Albanian migrant center after legal woes

  • Government in attempt to salvage a costly scheme frozen for months amid efforts to curb refugee influx

ROME: Italy’s government said it would use its Albanian migrant centers for people awaiting deportation, the latest attempt to salvage a costly scheme frozen for months by legal challenges.

The two Italian-run facilities, located near the coast in northern Albania, were opened last October as processing centers for potential asylum seekers intercepted at sea, an experimental project closely watched by EU partners.
But Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s ministers agreed on Friday that the centers will now primarily serve as repatriation facilities to hold migrants who are due to be sent back to their home countries.

BACKGROUND

The modification means that migrants who have already arrived on Italian shores could be sent across the Adriatic to a non-EU country to await their repatriations.

The modification means that migrants who have already arrived on Italian shores could be sent across the Adriatic to a non-EU country to await their repatriations.
Meloni, whose far-right Brothers of Italy party has vowed to cut irregular migration, has cast the scheme as a “courageous, unprecedented” model.
But the plan has run into a series of legal roadblocks, and the centers have stood mainly empty.
Italian judges have repeatedly refused to sign off on the detention in Albania of migrants intercepted by Italian authorities at sea, ordering them to be transferred to Italy instead.
The European Court of Justice, ECJ, is now reviewing the policy.
On Friday, Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi said the new decree modifying the Albania plan “allows us to give immediate reactivation” of the migrant centers.
“The plan is going ahead,” he told journalists, saying the use change “will not cost €1 more.”
The scheme was signed between Meloni and her Albanian counterpart, Edi Rama, in November 2023.
Under the plan, Italy would finance and operate the centers, where migrants considered to be from “safe” countries, and therefore unlikely to be eligible for asylum, would have their cases fast-tracked.
The first group of 16 migrants arrived in October, but they were promptly sent to Italy after judges ruled they did not meet the criteria.
Italy responded by modifying its list of so-called “safe countries,” but judges ruled twice more against subsequent detentions and referred the issue to the ECJ, which is expected to issue a ruling after May or June.
Meloni’s coalition government has cast the court rulings as politically motivated.
Italy’s opposition has decried government waste over the experiment, due to it costing an estimated €160 million ($173 million) per year, even as rights groups have worried that migrant protections would not be respected in the centers.
On Friday, former prime minister Matteo Renzi, a centrist, said the facilities would require a further €30 million to €50 million were they to be transformed into repatriation centers, calling them “useless structures, creatures of Giorgia Meloni’s propaganda.”
The leader of the center-left opposition Democratic Party, Elly Schlein, challenged the legal basis of the modification, saying European law “does not allow a repatriation center to be relocated to a third country.”
“The government has no qualms about trampling on fundamental rights and wasting more resources of Italians with its empty and harmful propaganda,” she wrote.
Immigration lawyer Guido Savio said that with the change announced on Friday, the government is trying to show that it can “make them work” while casting itself at the forefront of an “innovative” European policy on migration.
Savio said the changes will allow the government to prepare early for a draft EU regulation that would provide for outsourcing migrant centers to non-EU, so-called third countries, which is not due to take effect before 2027.
But Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo, another immigration attorney, predicted an “avalanche of appeals” after the latest government action, which he said has “no legal basis.”
The latest move has “highly symbolic” importance for the government, which “does not want to show the failure of the Albania model,” he said.
Undocumented migration via the Central Mediterranean route between North Africa and Italy fell by 59 percent last year, with 67,000 migrant arrivals, according to European border agency Frontex, due to fewer departures from Tunisia and Libya.

 


London police using withdrawn powers to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies: Probe

Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

London police using withdrawn powers to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies: Probe

  • ‘Cumulative disruption’ cited to ban, reroute rallies but power granted by concept withdrawn by Court of Appeal in May
  • Network for Police Monitoring: This demonstrates ‘ongoing crackdown on protest’ that has reached ‘alarming point’

LONDON: London’s Metropolitan Police have used powers that have been withdrawn to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies in the capital, legal experts have said.

The Guardian and Liberty Investigates obtained evidence that police officers had imposed restrictions on at least two protests based on the principle of “cumulative disruption.” But that power was withdrawn by the Court of Appeal in May, according to legal experts.

All references to cumulative disruption have been removed from relevant legislation, yet the Home Office and the Met continue to insist that police officers retain the power to consider the concept when suppressing protests.

On May 7, five days after the powers were withdrawn, the Met banned a Jewish pro-Palestine group from holding its weekly rally in north London, citing the cumulative impact on the neighborhood’s Jewish community.

Last month, the Met forced the Palestine Coalition to change the route of its rally on three days’ notice, highlighting the cumulative impact on businesses during Black Friday weekend.

Raj Chada, a partner at Hodge, Jones & Allen and a leading criminal lawyer, said: “There is no reference to cumulative disruption in the original (legislation). The regulations that introduced this concept were quashed in May 2025, so I fail to see how this can still be the approach taken by police. There is no legal basis for this whatsoever.”

The Met appeared “not to care” if it was acting within the law, the Network for Police Monitoring said, adding that the revelation surrounding “cumulative disruption” demonstrated an “ongoing crackdown on protest” that had reached an “alarming point” by police in London.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced plans in October to reintroduce the power to consider cumulative impact in toughened form.

But Nick Glynn, a retired senior officer from Leicestershire Police, said: “The police have too many protest powers already and they definitely don’t need any more. If they are provided with them, they not only use them (but) as in this case, they stretch them.

“They go beyond what was intended. The right to protest is sacrosanct and more stifling of protest makes democracy worth less.”

Cumulative disruption was regularly considered and employed in regulations if protests met the threshold of causing “serious disruption to the life of the community.”

The Court of Appeal withdrew the power following a legal challenge by human rights group Liberty.

Ben Jamal, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s director, was reportedly told by Alison Heydari, the Met’s deputy assistant commissioner, that her decision on imposing protest regulations “will be purely around the cumulative effect of your protests.”

She reportedly added that “this is not just about Saturday’s protest but it’s a combination of all the impacts of all the processions so far,” referencing “serious disruption” to the business community.

“You’ve used this route in November 2024, and you’ve used it a few times before then as well. So, there is an impact.”

The repeated disruption to PSC-hosted marches, the largest pro-Palestine events in London, was a “demobilizer,” Jamal said.

It also caused confusion about march starting points and led to protesters being harassed by police officers who accused them of violating protest conditions, he added.

A Met spokesperson told The Guardian: “The outcome of the judicial review does not prevent senior officers from considering the cumulative impact of protest on the life of communities.

“To determine the extent of disruption that may result from a particular protest, it is, of course, important to consider the circumstances in which that protest is to be held, including any existing disruption an affected community is already experiencing.

“We recognise the importance of the right to protest. We also recognise our responsibility to use our powers to ensure that protest does not result in serious disorder or serious disruption. We use those powers lawfully and will continue to do so.”