In a significant legal showdown, Albania's constitutional court is set to rule on the contentious migration deal with Italy's far-right government. This agreement, unveiled by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in November, has sparked debates about its constitutionality and potential ramifications for both countries.
The deal's primary objective is to utilize Albanian territory for establishing reception centers to process individuals attempting to enter the European Union (EU) via the sea route. The court will scrutinize whether this arrangement violates Albania's constitution, as critics argue that it could entail ceding a part of Albania's territory to Italy for migrant processing.
Initially, the plan involves hosting approximately 3,000 people, with a broader long-term vision capable of handling up to 36,000 individuals annually. However, the court's decision may have far-reaching implications, not only for the bilateral agreement between Italy and Albania but also for the broader landscape of EU migration policies.
Comparable to the UK's deal with Rwanda, detractors point to several legal and human rights concerns associated with the Albania-Italy agreement. The court's ruling may set a precedent for the externalization of asylum responsibilities, a trend that has raised eyebrows among human rights advocates and international observers.
The agreement has been tacitly endorsed by the EU, despite criticisms from human rights groups. Under its terms, individuals allocated to Albania would be those rescued by Italian boats. Notably, minors, pregnant women, and vulnerable individuals would be transported to Italy.
The court's decision, initially scheduled for Thursday, could potentially be deferred, with judges granted a three-month window to deliberate. The outcome may influence Italy's strategy to reduce sea arrivals, which surged by 50% last year from nearly 104,000 in 2022 to almost 156,000.
This ruling could serve as a litmus test for the legality and viability of migration agreements between EU member states and non-member countries. The verdict might also shed light on the delicate balance between national sovereignty and international cooperation in addressing the complex challenges posed by migration.
As the decision hangs in the balance, the outcome of this legal battle could chart the course for future migration policies in the European context and impact the relationship between EU nations and their non-member state counterparts.