Uganda is considered the most likely candidate for a pilot project. Other countries under consideration are Tunisia, Albania, as well as Georgia and Moldova.

The proposal has drawn sharp criticism from human rights organizations, migration experts, and the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights.

BRUSSELS/VIENNA. Austria’s Interior Minister Gerhard Karner (ÖVP) is pressing ahead as planned with a radical reorientation of European migration policy. On the sidelines of the EU Council of Interior Ministers in Brussels, Karner presented details in early March 2026 of a project that envisions the establishment of return centers in third countries outside the European Union. Austria is acting as the spearhead of a coalition of five EU member states determined to dramatically accelerate the deportation of rejected asylum seekers.

The “Group of Five”: An alliance of the determined

The initiative is not a unilateral Austrian action, but the result of close cooperation that first took shape in January 2026 in Cyprus. In addition to Austria, this “Group of Implementers” includes Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Greece.

The shared goal of these countries is to transfer persons whose asylum applications have been definitively rejected, but who cannot be returned directly to their home country, to logistical centers — so-called “Return Hubs” — in third countries. From there, the final return to countries of origin is to be organized. This measure is intended to reduce pressure on national asylum systems and make the operational implementation of deportations more effective.

The legal basis: The new EU Pact

This historically far-reaching project is made possible by the new EU Asylum and Migration Pact, which will enter fully into force on June 12, 2026. This reform package significantly relaxes the previously strict rules on cooperation with third countries and expressly legitimizes the establishment of such centers outside EU territory. The participating ministers see this as the necessary legal foundation for a “consequences offensive” on returns.

The location question: Diplomatic discretion and hot candidates

Officially, the governments involved are keeping quiet about specific partner countries. Interior Minister Karner stressed that public debates about locations could jeopardize ongoing negotiations, as past examples (such as the British Rwanda model) have shown.

Nevertheless, indications about potential locations are accumulating:

Uganda: The East African country is currently considered the most likely candidate for a pilot project. There are reports of advanced discussions regarding logistical support.

Further options: Also in focus are countries on the new, binding EU list of “safe third countries” (adopted on February 10, 2026), including North Africa (e.g., Tunisia), the Western Balkans (particularly Albania, which already practices a similar model with Italy), as well as countries such as Georgia or Moldova.

Strategic partners: Austria’s Interior Ministry emphasizes the importance of cooperation with neighboring states of crisis regions in order to make returns geographically more efficient.

Serious concerns: A legal and moral minefield

Despite the political resolve of the “Group of Five,” the project faces fierce criticism from human rights organizations, migration experts, and the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. They cite serious legal obstacles:

-Violation of the non-refoulement principle: Critics such as Amnesty International warn that in third countries like Uganda, fundamental protection standards against torture or inhuman treatment cannot be guaranteed. The risk of “chain deportations” to dangerous countries of origin is high.

-Lack of legal protection: It is doubted that those affected, in distant centers, will have effective access to lawyers and fair court proceedings to challenge their deportation. The new rule under which legal challenges often no longer have a suspensive effect is seen as an erosion of the rule of law.

-Detention conditions and deprivation of liberty: Experts warn that these centers could become “legal black holes” under unclear legal status, in which arbitrary and prolonged detention is a real risk.

-The “connection clause”: The planned weakening of the rule that deportations are only permissible to countries with which the person has a “genuine connection” is considered highly controversial in legal terms and could fail before the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

While the government speaks of a necessary “migration turning point,” NGOs warn of a capitulation to human rights standards and high costs combined with low legal certainty. The return center project thus remains not only politically, but also legally, a highly explosive issue.

>>-> EU tightens deportation rules: Parliament upends old majorities

>>-> Integration: New Penalties versus ECJ Ruling

>>-> More Female Asylum Seekers Despite Decline in Numbers

By Okay Altinisik | 6-3-2026, 12:07:29