Is Italy-Albania Asylum Deal Compatible with EU Law? Insights from the ECJ and Recent EU Updates

Aug 04, 2025

Italy-Albania Asylum Deal: Landmark ECJ Ruling Tightens Rules on Offshore Asylum and Safe Country Practices

Italy-Albania Asylum Deal: On 1 August 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) issued a landmark ruling in joined cases C‑758/24 (Alace) and C‑759/24 (Canpelli), clarified key legal limits applicable to Italy’s offshore asylum model and its use of safe country designations. The judgment reaffirms the EU’s commitment to effective judicial remedies and imposes stricter rules on how Member States can designate Safe Countries of Origin (SCOs).

In the wake of this ruling, attention has turned to a new EU Asylum Procedure Regulation, adopted in 2024 but not yet in force (scheduled to enter into application in June 2026) as well as the Commission’s Proposal of April 2025, which further clarifies and reinforces Member States’ authority to designate SCOs, provided that individual rights and exceptions for vulnerable groups are preserved.

The Italy-Albania Asylum Deal: Offshore Asylum Processing

In November 2023, Italy and Albania signed a bilateral protocol allowing Italy to establish and operate two asylum processing centers on Albanian territory, under Italian jurisdiction. This agreement is part of Italy’s broader strategy to externalize migration control and expedite asylum procedures outside its national borders.

Key Provisions of the Protocol:

• The facilities are located in Shëngjin (for disembarkation) and Gjader (for processing), but are entirely managed by Italian authorities, including border police and asylum officials.
• The protocol excludes individuals rescued in Search and Rescue (SAR) operations, in accordance with international maritime obligations. It applies only to non-EU nationals intercepted by Italian authorities in specific contexts, with asylum procedures conducted under Italian jurisdiction, both legally and operationally.
• Asylum procedures conducted in these centers are governed by Italian and EU law, with Italy retaining full legal and procedural responsibility, including for detention and appeals.

Does the Italy-Albania asylum deal pose legal or human rights concerns?

• The protocol has raised serious legal concerns among human rights organizations and legal scholars:
  • Potential violations of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
  • Use of accelerated procedures with limited access to legal remedies.
  • Risk of automatic rejection of claims from nationals of so-called “safe countries of origin”, undermining the principle of individual assessment.
• Critics argue that the arrangement may amount to de facto extraterritorial detention, raising questions about access to legal aid, judicial oversight, and conditions of detention.

The Italy–Albania agreement has attracted EU-wide attention, with several Member States expressing interest in replicating or adapting the model as a means to externalize asylum procedures.

The Joined Cases C-758/24 (Alace) and C-759/24 (Canpelli)

The cases arose when two Bangladeshi nationals, Alace and Canpelli, challenged their asylum rejections under Italy’s accelerated Albania-based procedures.

They argued that:

• The Italian legislative designation of Bangladesh as a “safe” country violated EU law by denying them an effective remedy,
• The courts could not access the sources justifying the safe-country classification,
• And the system did not allow for exceptions for individuals or groups who might be at real risk in Bangladesh.

The Tribunal of Rome referred the matter to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.

What did the European Court of Justice Say? Judicial Review and Individual Protection Prevail

The ECJ held that under EU law, Safe Country of Origin designations, whether legislative or administrative, must remain subject to judicial review, and allow applicants to challenge the presumption based on their individual circumstances, explaining the following key aspects.

1. Legislative SCO (Safe Country of Origin) Designation is Permitted, But Not Absolute

A Member State may designate a third country as a SCO through legislative means. However, such legislation cannot preclude judicial review, nor prevent the applicant from adducing evidence to rebut the presumption of safety.

2. Access to Evidence Is Essential

Both asylum applicants and national courts must be able to examine the sources and information used to justify a country’s designation as a Safe Country of Origin (SCO). Without this transparency, applicants cannot effectively challenge the presumption of safety, and courts cannot carry out the full review required under EU law.

3. Importance of Transparency

In order to ensure the correct application of the concepts of safe countries based on up-to-date information, Member States should carry out regular reviews of the situation in such countries, using a range of information sources, including in particular information from other Member States, the EUAA, the UNHCR, the Council of Europe, and other relevant international organisations.

This ruling raises serious legal questions about the current implementation of the Italy–Albania protocol, particularly regarding its compatibility with EU asylum standards.

The Commission’s Position

While the European Commission has not formally responded to the Alace and Canpelli judgment, its 2024 Asylum Procedure Regulation (set to apply from June 2026) reflects many of the safeguards emphasized by the Court. It permits Member States to designate safe countries of origin, but only with judicial review and exceptions for at-risk individuals.

At the same time, the Commission continues to promote accelerated procedures and has introduced an EU-wide list of safe countries, including Bangladesh, the country at issue in the cases.

Key provisions include:

• Member States may designate safe countries through law or regulation;
• Exceptions must be made for vulnerable applicants;
• Applicants retain the right to an effective remedy, including suspensive appeals in most cases.

However, legal experts and civil society warn that the proposal could weaken protections in practice, due to rigid timelines, reduced appeal guarantees, and a growing reliance on presumptions of safety.

What Comes Next?

The judgment does not invalidate Italy’s SCO list but it most probably require Italy to revise aspects of its asylum legislation and implementation, particularly regarding safe country designations and procedural safeguards.

Meanwhile, the EU’s broader legislative agenda, especially the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, now faces a critical legal benchmark: ensuring that efficiency and deterrence do not come at the expense of individual rights.

Yuu Shibata

She is a Legal Counsel and she holds a Ph.D in Law (University of Bologna). She is specialized in European Union Law and she is the Head of the Japanese Desk and Spanish Desk. She is mother tongue Japanese and Spanish and speaks fluently Italian and English.

Related posts:

ECJ Advocate General: EU States Must Justify “Safe Country” Designations for Asylum Seekers A right of residence on medical grounds in the EU: what does the ECJ say? EU immigration law updates: The New Single Permit Directive Updates on the Entry Exist System (EES)