Today, we publish the policy brief titled “The European Commission Monitors the Italy-Albania Protocol, but the Circumvention of EU Law Is Already Evident”, in which we critically analyze the Protocol’s compatibility with European Union law and highlight the numerous critical issues and violations that have already emerged during its initial implementation.
The European Commission recently stressed that the implementation of the Italy-Albania Protocol must not undermine the effective functioning of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) or deviate from the common standards set out by EU law. However, ASGI points out that conducting extraterritorial asylum and return procedures in detention centers located in a third country such as Albania already raises significant concerns under EU law.The monitoring carried out by the Tavolo Asilo e Immigrazione (TAI), a coalition of nearly 50 organizations, including ASGI, at the Shëngjin and Gjader centers during the operations so far conducted by the italian authorities (October and November 2024 and January 2025), has uncovered numerous violations of the standards set by the EU asylum procedure and reception conditions directives.
- Improper Qualification of Areas in Albania as “Transit or Border Zones” under EU Law.
ASGI emphasizes that this qualification, based on an overly broad interpretation not supported by Union law, risks undermining the uniform application of EU law and arbitrarily subjects asylum seekers to more restrictive regimes.
- Ineffective Identification Process for “Vulnerable” Individuals on Ships or at the Shëngjin Port.
The summary identification process and the lack of adequate and competent personnel put vulnerable individuals at risk of incorrectly being subjected to accelerated border procedures and held in inadequate reception conditions, in violation of Articles 20 and 21 of Directive 2013/33/EU. The fact that many individuals were only recognized as vulnerable after arriving in Albania confirms the inadequacy of the identification process.
- Violation of the Right to Defense in Albania.
Remote asylum interviews and appeals, with legal counsel physically distant from their clients, combined with delayed notification of hearings and the confiscation of mobile phones, prevents the effective exercise of the right to defense. This violates Article 10(4) and Article 9(6) of Directive 2013/33/EU, interpreted in the light of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
- Lack of Effective Legal Information for Asylum Seekers Detained in Albania.
The notification of a negative decision prior to the detention validation hearing, coupled with the inability to receive legal counsel or contact a lawyer before the Territorial Commission hearing, violates Articles 6 and 12 of Directive 2013/32/EU. This restriction on the right to defense is further exacerbated by the short seven-day deadline for appeals, in violation of Article 47 of the Charter.
- Arbitrary Detention of Asylum Seekers in Centers Located in Albania.
The failure to promptly release detainees when detention is not validated, the systematic issuance of detention orders without proper assessment of individual circumstances, and the lack of effective access to alternatives to detention amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty, in violation of Articles 8-9 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 6 of the Charter. Additionally, the deprivation of liberty during transfers, in the absence of a clear legal basis, appears arbitrary and in violation of Article 13 of the Italian Constitution and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), thus also violating Article 6 of the Charter.
- Inapplicability of Dublin Procedures due to the Lack of Fingerprint Registration in the Eurodac System in a Third Country.
In light of these serious violations, ASGI believes that the Protocol and its implementation compromise the uniform and effective application of harmonized EU rules and obligations, undermining the Common European Asylum System, and violating the rights and safeguards that EU member states must guarantee to those in need of international protection.
ASGI reiterates the urgent need for the European Commission to take action to ensure compliance with EU law. Moreover, ASGI stresses that the centers in Albania cannot, under any circumstances, be transformed into “return hubs,” as the Return Directive does not allow for the outsourcing of the execution of return decisions to a third country.
