Key messages

• For the first time, the agreed text of the new EU Return Regulation explicitly allows a person subject to a return decision to be transferred to a third country with which they have no connection — neither citizenship, nor prior residence, nor a right of entry.
• The Regulation does not regulate return hubs as an institution: the status of transferred persons, their conditions of stay and oversight all depend on each individual agreement, which may also take the form of a non-binding arrangement concluded without parliament and without publication.
• The text leaves unanswered the questions that arise only after a transfer, from legal status in the host country and the risk of a legal vacuum, to access to asylum and the divided responsibility of two states.
• Independent assessments, from the European Parliament’s research service to the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and UNHCR, converge on three requirements: agreements must be legally binding and public, every transfer requires an individual assessment and an effective remedy, and status and oversight must be resolved in advance.
• Serbia should not take on the role of host country, and any potential initiative would have to be decided on publicly, with ratification in the National Assembly and a prior assessment of its consequences.

About the publication

The explainer “Return Hubs Outside the EU” examines the most contested novelty of the agreed EU regulation on a common return system: the possibility for Member States, on the basis of an agreement or arrangement with a third country, to transfer to that country persons who have been issued a return decision.

The text comes at the moment when the European Parliament has adopted its first-reading position and five Member States have announced work on hubs outside the EU. It focuses on the questions decisive for assessing any future initiative: what exactly Article 17 allows and under which conditions, whether the envisaged safeguards are sufficient, and who is responsible for the rights of transferred persons.

What the publication contains

The explainer tracks how far the adoption procedure has come and clarifies what return hubs are, and what they are not. It analyses the conditions set out in Article 17, the legal questions left open after a transfer, the plans of the five states, and the assessments of independent bodies, the European Parliament’s research service, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, UNHCR and ECRE.

A separate section is devoted to the consequences of Serbia’s potential participation as a host country: the form of decision-making and its transparency, jurisdiction over transferred persons, the prohibition of further removal, and the wider implications. The publication concludes with three recommendations, and all claims are documented in 22 endnotes with sources.

Who the publication is for

The publication is intended for decision-makers and the institutions responsible for migration and asylum, and it is also useful to civil society organisations, the media and the professional public following European return policy and its significance for Serbia. The explainer can serve as a quick orientation on what has been agreed and how far the procedure has come, as a framework for assessing any future initiative, including the difference between a binding agreement and an informal arrangement, and the minimum conditions set by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and as a basis for public debate and parliamentary oversight.

How to cite: Milanović, M., Lunić, S. (2026). Return Hubs Outside the EU: What the Announced Changes Mean for Serbia. IDEAS Centre for Research and Social Development.