Greece has approved legislation to accelerate the removal of rejected asylum seekers and allow their transfer to “return hubs” outside the European Union, making Athens one of the first member states to translate the EU’s harder migration line into national law.
The Greek parliament passed the measure late on Tuesday, according to Reuters. The legislation is designed to speed up deportations and create a legal basis for transfers to centres in third countries, once Greece or a group of EU states reaches bilateral arrangements with governments outside the bloc.
The law follows a broader EU agreement on returns reached earlier this month. On 1 June, the Council of the European Union said negotiators from the Council and European Parliament had reached a provisional deal on new rules intended to make returns of illegally staying third-country nationals faster and more effective. The agreement forms part of the implementation of the EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum.
The return-hub element is the most politically sensitive part of the shift. It would allow member states, under certain conditions, to send people who have been ordered to leave the EU to centres in third countries. The practical arrangements would depend on agreements with those countries, as well as legal safeguards and oversight mechanisms.
EU return-hubs deal gives governments new deportation powers but opens legal dispute
Greece is central to the issue because of geography and recent migration pressure. During the 2015–16 migration crisis, it was one of the principal entry points into the EU for people arriving from the Middle East and Africa. Arrivals later fell, but Reuters reported that Crete and Gavdos, two Greek islands close to North Africa, have seen a steep rise in boats arriving mainly from Libya over the past two years.
Athens argues that the returns system must be strengthened if EU asylum policy is to be credible. Greek Migration Minister Thanos Plevris said, according to Reuters, that Greece has been in consultations with two African countries, which he did not name. Greece has also been working with the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Austria on joint return and transit hubs.
The stated aim is to reach first agreements this year and make hubs operational in 2027. That timetable shows that the Greek legislation is not only a domestic enforcement measure, but part of a wider attempt by several EU governments to turn the return-hub concept into a functioning policy.
For the EU, the issue exposes a long-standing weakness in migration management. Many people who receive return decisions are not actually removed. Reasons include lack of cooperation by countries of origin, missing documentation, legal appeals, practical enforcement limits and political reluctance to carry out removals. The Commission and member states have argued that this gap undermines the credibility of asylum decisions and places pressure on border states.
The new approach seeks to close that gap by standardising return procedures, increasing mutual recognition of return decisions across the EU and allowing external arrangements with third countries. Supporters say this would reduce secondary movements inside the bloc and remove incentives for people to remain after unsuccessful asylum claims.
Critics argue that return hubs could weaken legal protections and move responsibility for vulnerable people outside the EU’s direct control. Rights organisations and legal experts have warned that external centres may create monitoring problems, expose migrants to abuse, or lead to returns to countries where they have no meaningful connection. The European Parliament’s earlier backing for the model drew criticism from groups concerned about detention, access to legal advice and compliance with international law.
The Greek legislation is therefore likely to become an early test case. It will show whether return hubs can be implemented in a way that survives legal challenge, secures cooperation from third countries and satisfies EU requirements on fundamental rights. It will also test whether member states are prepared to bear the political and financial costs of such arrangements.
The comparison with Italy’s arrangement with Albania is unavoidable. Rome’s plan to process some migrants outside Italian territory has faced legal and operational obstacles, demonstrating that external migration arrangements can be difficult to implement even when political agreement exists. Greece will have to navigate similar questions over jurisdiction, detention standards, judicial access and responsibility for people who cannot ultimately be removed.
For Brussels, the Greek vote comes at a moment when migration policy is moving from legislative agreement to enforcement. The Pact on Migration and Asylum was intended to create a more predictable system across the bloc. The return law now raises the question of how far member states will go to ensure that negative asylum decisions are acted upon.
The policy also carries diplomatic implications. If Greece and other member states seek agreements with African countries, those talks are likely to involve money, visa policy, development cooperation, trade incentives and security cooperation. Migration returns have increasingly become part of wider bargaining between the EU and third countries.
For readers beyond Greece, the significance lies in the direction of EU policy. The migration debate is no longer limited to border management, asylum registration or relocation between member states. It is now moving towards external enforcement, stronger return powers and negotiations with non-EU countries willing to host people ordered to leave Europe.
The Greek law does not by itself create operational return hubs. It does, however, give Athens a national framework to participate in them once agreements are in place. That makes it an important step in the EU’s attempt to shift from managing arrivals to enforcing departures.
