In fresh days, the Italian authorities have caused rather a stir in Brussels, opposed to a key component of the European Union's migration policy.
Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni unexpectedly challenged the European Commission's proposals. The Italian government warns that the fresh draft regulation on common return procedures will not only limit the sovereignty of the associate States, but will besides impose excessive bureaucratic burdens on them, which can in practice prevent the effective removal.
The plan adopted in March this year, identified by the Commission as the "last missing element" of the EU migration pact, introduces a number of solutions to harmonise return procedures across the EU. 1 of the most controversial provisions is the alleged European Return Order, which implies common designation of deportation decisions issued by individual states. According to Brussels, this mechanics will improve the exchange of information and let for faster enforcement of deportation sentences, besides erstwhile an illegal resident of the EU is identified in a country that has not issued the first decision.
However, according to the Italian Senate, published in the Parliamentary Paper of the Committee on European Policy, the ongoing process of preparing and common designation of these decisions can become a "procedural burden" which outweighs the benefits of the coherence of the law. The paper points out that the request to adapt interior legal systems to uniform EU standards would require the beginning of a number of forms, translations, consultation and arrangements between administrations – activities that will in practice extend the deportation process and impose additional obligations on offices.
The next point is the regulation of freedom to find the period during which the deportee remains subject to a re-entry ban. The Commission's draft border is expected to be a minimum of 1 year, with the anticipation of extension, but the exact timeframe should be harmonised at EU level. Rome warns that depriving associate States of their competence to form these prohibitions would violate the rule of subsidiarity and would lead to an erosion of national sovereignty. Italian parliamentarians point out that it is crucial for national authorities to have tools to respond flexibly to local conditions, especially in the face of the strong migration force facing the countries of confederate Europe first.
The Senate's communication besides stresses that the proposal for "European Return Centres", the alleged return hubs, is at odds with Italy's current function as a host and transit country. These centres, deployed outside the EU, would service as temporary detention and removal arrangements, which Rome felt would entail large legal uncertainty and immense logistical costs. Without clarifying the financing of specified hubs and the sharing of work between Brussels and the capitals of the associate States, there is simply a hazard of creating quasi-camps that would refocus almost all migration work on border countries alternatively of evenly distributing it.
Participants in the Senate's discussions point out that Italia has so far been 1 of the leaders in support of the improvement of the EU's migration and asylum system. The Meloni government actively supported the update of the list of safe countries of origin, including Albania, to aid velocity up the procedures for legal processing of applications and relieve administrative burdens in Italy. But now the Italian capital breaks out of the pact and may be the first parliament to formally object to the proposed regulation. The vote which was originally to take place earlier was postponed to 25 June, giving time for final negotiations and possible amendments.
Meanwhile, the European Commission is faced with a hard choice: it can reject the reservations of the Italian Parliament, which would hazard a dispute between an EU institution and a member, or, which is highly rare, work on the revision of the project. In Brussels, it is not excluded that Italian objections can inspire akin movements in another countries that have been silent so far. So far, out of the 27 national parliaments that have looked at the project, no authoritative comments have been made on the rule of subsidiarity or proportionality. However, if the legislature adopts a critical position in the last days of June, Italy will lead the sceptical factions towards centralisation of migration decisions.
At the same time, Italy is faced with delays in implementing commitments beyond the Return Regulation itself. According to the Migration and Asylum Pact, which will enter into force in the summertime of 2026, each country is required to indicate by April 2026 the location of the centres for the mandatory selection of migrants and to carry out the essential procedures. To date, no country has informed the Commission of its willingness to designate specified facilities. Without a fast epilogue on financial planning and acquisition of logistics equipment, implementation dates will start to break, and the first checks will start as early as June 2026.
Germany is in a peculiarly hard situation, alongside Italy, due to long-term public procurement processes, as well as Estonia and Greece, which have not yet begun appropriate preparation. Furthermore, the Commission pointed out that the Italian plan to establish an independent mechanics for monitoring fundamental rights faces critical reservations. Although around twenty-three countries included specified institutions in their national strategies, Italy, together with Bulgaria and Malta, raised comments on the scope of competence and the budget of this body. Brussels relies on specified a tool to function smoothly and independently, but Rome calls for clarification on how its reports will affect migration policy and what instruments are foreseen to enforce possible recommendations.
Italian critics fear that Meloni's tough attitude can weaken the unity of the Union in the face of migratory pressure. On the another hand, supporters of national sovereignty indicate the request for flexibility in the selection of legal and organisational tools adapted to the circumstantial characteristics of the country. In this way, the conflict around the return of foreigners becomes 1 of the tests for the full Migration Pact, verifying how associate States are prepared to give part of their competence to Brussels and to adopt common solutions which, according to supporters, would work faster and more efficiently than erstwhile dispersed procedures.
Both in Rome and in the EU institutions there is simply a belief that compromise is necessary. The Commission ensures that it is ready to discuss certain method provisions and the timetable for implementation, while maintaining the key logic of the single return procedure. Italy expects a warrant that the legal instruments will not only service the transfer of work for migrants from front countries to poorer countries in South Europe.
In the next fewer weeks, emotions may increase. The legislature gathering scheduled for June 25 may decide on the final form of the position of the Italian Parliament. If Italy blocks the rules, the Commission will face a challenge: whether to retreat from the most controversial part of the improvement or go into open conflict with 1 of the key members of the Union. Regardless of the outcome, the debate on the return of migrants has highlighted a deep dispute over the balance between European solidarity and national sovereignty - the subject will surely return at the next legislative stages of the EU migration pact.
