Italy’s planned asylum centers in Albania are once again under fire following a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

The judges in Luxembourg have ruled that EU states may only classify a third country as “safe” if there is comprehensible and accessible information about that country’s treatment of people seeking protection. It was particularly emphasised that vulnerable groups – such as members of the LGBTQ+ community – must also enjoy consistent protection in order for a country to be considered safe. The ECJ clarified this on Thursday after a Bulgarian asylum case concerning the classification of Georgia as a safe country of origin.

The decision could have direct implications for the controversial agreement between Italy and Albania. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had presented this model as the centerpiece of her migration policy. Italy wants to outsource certain asylum procedures to Albanian camps – for example, for migrants who were rescued in the Mediterranean and come from countries that Italy considers safe. The procedures are to be carried out there under Italian law, but outside the EU.

According to the Bild newspaper, Meloni reacted with outrage to the ECJ ruling. In a Facebook video, she spoke of a “political” decision that restricted her government’s room for maneuver and encouraged illegal migration. She emphasized that Italy had no intention of abandoning the Albania model.

The Italian opposition had already expressed legal concerns. The fact that the ECJ is now demanding not only transparency but also actual protection for all affected groups could be seen as backing for the critics. German asylum law experts also welcomed the ruling, as it underscores the responsibility of member states to find solutions that are not only pragmatic but also compatible with human rights.

According to the newspaper Il Messaggero, around 110 migrants have now been taken to the Albanian camp near Shëngjin. The project has been viewed critically by the EU Commission from the outset, mainly because it could set a precedent for the outsourcing of European asylum procedures – with unclear legal consequences.

What makes this particularly controversial is that the ECJ’s ruling came on the same day that the Italian Constitutional Court was also due to deliberate on the legality of the outsourcing plans. This also raises the question of the extent to which Italy can assume responsibility for people who are effectively outside its territory but subject to Italian law. The Luxembourg ruling has given this discussion a new urgency.

Despite the legal criticism, Meloni’s coalition partners in the right-wing Lega party have called for the model to be expanded quickly in Albania. But the more clearly European courts oppose such arrangements, the less room there will be for national solo efforts.