EU court rules against Italy on Albania migrant camps scheme

Migrants follow the authorities after their arrival in the port of Shengjin, northwestern Albania, Jan. 28, 2025. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 01 August 2025
Follow

EU court rules against Italy on Albania migrant camps scheme

  • Judgment weakens policies to combat mass illegal immigration and defend national borders, Meloni says

ROME/BRUSSELS: Europe’s top court on Friday questioned the legitimacy of Italy’s “safe countries” list, which is used to send migrants to Albania and fast-track their asylum claims, in a fresh blow to a key plank of the government’s migration policy.

Conservative  Giorgia Meloni’s office, in a statement, called the court ruling “surprising” and said it “weakens policies to combat mass illegal immigration and defend national borders.”
Dario Belluccio, a lawyer who represented one of the Bangladeshi asylum-seekers in the specific case brought before the European Court of Justice, said the Albanian migrant camps scheme had effectively been killed off.

BACKGROUND

The detention facilities Italy set up in Albania have been empty for months, due to judicial obstacles.

“It will not be possible to continue with what the Italian government had envisioned before this decision ... Technically, it seems to me that the government’s approach has been completely dismantled,” he told Reuters.
Meloni had presented the offshoring of asylum-seekers to camps built in Albania as a cornerstone of her tough approach to immigration, and other European countries had looked to the idea as a possible model.
However, the scheme stumbled on legal opposition almost as soon as it was launched last year, with Italian courts ordering the return to Italy of migrants picked up at sea and taken to Albania, citing issues with EU law.
In a long-awaited judgment, the Luxembourg-based ECJ ruled that Italy is authorized to fast-track asylum rejections for nationals from countries on a “safe” list — a principle at the heart of the Albania scheme.
It also stated that Italy is free to decide which countries are “safe,” but warned that such a designation should meet strict legal standards and allow applicants and courts to access and challenge the supporting evidence.
In its statement, the ECJ said a Rome court had turned to EU judges, citing the impossibility of accessing such information and thus preventing it from “challenging and reviewing the lawfulness of such a presumption of safety.”
The ECJ also stated that a country may not be classified as “safe” if it fails to provide adequate protection to its entire population, effectively agreeing with Italian judges who had raised this issue last year.
Meloni’s office complained that the EU judgment effectively allows national judges to dictate policy on migration, “further reducing the already limited” capacity of parliament and government to take decisions on the matter.
“This is a development that should concern everybody,” it said.
The case raised before the ECJ involved two Bangladeshi nationals who were rescued at sea by Italian authorities and taken to Albania, where their asylum claims were rejected based on Italy’s classification of Bangladesh as a “safe” country.
The detention facilities Italy set up in Albania have been empty for months, due to judicial obstacles. Last week, a report found that their construction cost was seven times more than that of an equivalent center in Italy.
Though the Albanian scheme is stuck in legal limbo, Italy’s overall effort to curb undocumented migration by sea has been more successful. 
There have been 36,557 such migrant arrivals to date, slightly up from the same period in 2024, but far below the 89,165 recorded over the same time span in 2023.

 


Ben & Jerry’s risks ‘destruction’ under parent company Magnum, co-founder says

Updated 4 sec ago
Follow

Ben & Jerry’s risks ‘destruction’ under parent company Magnum, co-founder says

  • Ben Cohen’s remarks part of long-running dispute over ice cream maker’s freedom to pursue social mission
  • Company has long supported pro-Palestinian cause through business operations

LONDON: The co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s has said the ice cream brand will be destroyed if it remains with parent company Magnum, the BBC reported.

Ben Cohen’s remarks are the latest in a longtime feud between Ben & Jerry’s and Magnum over the former’s freedom to pursue its social mission and retain independence over its board.

The Magnum Ice Cream Co. on Monday began trading on the European stock market after spinning off from owner Unilever.

Magnum wants to strengthen Ben & Jerry’s “powerful, nonpartisan values-based position in the world,” a spokesperson said.

In 2000, Ben & Jerry’s was sold to Unilever as part of a deal that saw it retain an independent board and the right to pursue its social mission.

But the deal led to clashes between the Vermont, US brand and its owner.

The feud has now been inherited by Magnum.

Ben & Jerry’s has long supported the Palestinian cause. In 2021 it prohibited the sale of its products in areas occupied by Israel.

In response, its Israeli operation was sold by Unilever to a local licensee.

In October, Cohen said the brand was prevented from launching an ice cream product that expressed “solidarity with Palestine.”

Ahead of its spin-off from Unilever last month, Magnum said that Anuradha Mittal, chair of Ben & Jerry’s, “no longer met the criteria to serve.”

Mittal has held the position since 2018 but was encouraged to resign following an internal audit conducted by Magnum, which found a “series of material deficiencies in financial controls, governance and other compliance policies, including conflicts of interest,” according to a spokesperson.

“So far, the trustees have not fully addressed the deficiencies identified.”

Mittal, speaking to Reuters, said: “The so-called audit of the foundation was a manufactured inquiry, engineered to attempt to discredit me.

“It is important to understand that this is not simply an attack on me as chair, it is Unilever’s attempt to undermine the authority of the board itself.”

Cohen said that Magnum had “no standing to determine who the chair of the independent board should be.”

“Therefore, by trying to (change the chair of the board), I would say that Magnum is not fit to own Ben & Jerry’s.”

Ben & Jerry’s must be either owned by a “group of investors that support the brand” and sought to encourage its values, or Magnum should make a “180-degree turnaround and say they support the chairman of the independent board,” Cohen said.

Mittal said she had no plans to step down from the board ahead of Magnum’s share market entry this week.

Cohen is still an employee of Ben & Jerry’s and is the most high-profile spokesperson for the brand. But he told the BBC that under Magnum’s ownership, the ice cream maker could end up losing its most “loyal” customers.

“If the company continues to be owned by Magnum, not only will the values be lost but the essence of the brand will be lost,” he said.

Magnum CEO Peter ter Kulve told the Financial Times on Sunday that Ben & Jerry’s founders — Cohen and Jerry Greenfield — were in their 70s and “at a certain moment they need to hand over to a new generation.”

Greenfield left the company this year over concerns that its social mission was being stifled.

Cohen said: “As they destroy Ben and Jerry’s values, they will destroy that following and they will destroy that brand. It’ll become just another piece of frozen mush that is just going to lose a lot of market share.”